Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PORT OF FOSDYKE BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

GRAMPIAN REGIONAL COUNCIL (HARBOURS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Prison Accommodation

Mr. Hugh Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total cell accommodation in Scottish prisons; how many are currently out of use; for what reasons; and when he expects additional cells to come into use.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The total design capacity of accommodation in Scottish penal establishments is 5,398 places. Of these, 395 cells are currently out of use as a result of damage in recent incidents. Four hundred and sixty eight additional places will become available when phase 2 of Shotts prison is brought into use this year.

Mr. Brown: During the recent disturbance in Barlinnie the Secretary of State repeatedly stated that overcrowding was not a problem. When is the inspector's report on Peterhead expected? Will the Secretary of State comment on the leaked report by the prison working group? Everybody in Scotland seems to know about that report except us. What proposals does he have in mind to reduce the prison population rather than to reshuffle places and prisoners?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has raised many points. My comments on overcrowding related to B hall of Barlinnie, where the incident took place, and indeed to Peterhead. In neither case has there been overcrowding. I have said that I shall consider publishing the working party's report when its draft report is finally determined. It might be a useful contribution to public debate on this matter.
The hon. Gentleman will agree that one of the most important aspects of the prison population concerns those

in prison for non-payment of fines. He will be aware of the appointment of fine enforcement officers. Early signs are that those appointments are at least helping to reduce the number of people admitted to prison for that reason. Clearly, we shall be willing to give further consideration to ideas that might produce further progress.

Mr. Henderson: How much have the Government expended in capital expenditure in Scottish prisons in recent years? How does it compare with the record of the previous Government to improve accommodation in Scottish prisons?

Mr. Rifkind: The standard figure is approximately £40 million since 1979. Indeed, the opening of the new phase of Shotts prison will provide a substantial improvement in the quality of the infrastructure for those incarcerated within prisons. We attach importance to a proper prison programme to ensure that the standard of facilities in Scottish prisons is commensurate with what modern circumstances suggest is appropriate.

Mr. O'Neill: Although the, Secretary of State and the Opposition may disagree on what is meant by overcrowding, he will surely accept that too many people are in Scottish prisons and that not all of them are in prison because they have not paid fines. Is it not depressing that the best that the Scottish prisons group can come up with is some reshuffling of numbers? It should look at finding better ways of treating prisoners by means of halfway houses and more imaginative sentencing policies, and that is the Secretary of State's responsibility.

Mr. Rifkind: I ask the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that the question of who gets sent to prison is a matter not for the working group or, indeed, for the Government, but for the courts to determine when convicted individuals are sentenced. Therefore, penal policy relates to other issues.
The working party is looking at alternative systems for certain kinds of prisoners. I am anxious, beyond that aspect, to look at other ways of ensuring that, at the end of the day, prisons are used only for those for whom there is no appropriate alternative form of punishment. There is common ground on that matter. Translating that into specific policy decisions is inevitably more difficult, but we are open to proposals that might be forthcoming on this matter. At the end of the day, what is done with any individual convicted person is a matter for the courts and not for anyone else.

Mr. Hirst: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the recent disruption in prisons and the consequent damage to prison buildings have merely compounded the overcrowding problem in certain prisons? At the same time, will he place on record his admiraton for the work of officer John Kearney, one of my constituents, who was held hostage for over 100 hours? Finally, with a view to dealing with any possible future disruption, will my right hon. and learned Friend invite the media to ensure that, in future, demonstrations are not covered by television, newspaper and radio people, because that has the unfortunate habit of encouraging demonstrations to continue for longer.

Mr. Rifkind: When the new phase 2 of Shotts prison is open, the total capacity of the Scottish prison system will be slightly greater than the total number of individual prisoners. However, there may still be a mismatch in individual establishments. We are considering ways of


ensuring that the establishments that are available are properly utilised so that there is not under-utilisation of capacity in one establishment and overcrowding in another. As for the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I do indeed pay tribute to the courage of all prison officers, who are constantly required to undertake very difficult and serious responsibilities that are often not perceived by the general public. The role that the media might play in covering incidents in prisons is a separate issue, but I know that all who are interested in the public interest will wish to ensure that nothing is done to inflame or aggravate any delicate situation, particularly when the physical safety of individual prison officers may be affected.

Mr. Clarke: Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman ignore the fact that under this Government the crime rate has risen by 80 per cent. in Scotland since 1979? Why has he failed to address himself today to the problem of prisoners on remand? Is he not worried about untried prisoners? Is he not worried that those who have been found guilty of nothing are being put into overcrowded cells? Does he accept that since Scotland sends to prison four times as many people as do most other European countries, the problem calls for resources? Above all, will he respond to the low morale among the personnel in Scottish prisons by holding an urgent public inquiry?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's question illustrates a certain degree of confusion. Those who have been found not guilty are not incarcerated in prison. The remand prisoners to whom the hon. Gentleman referred are those who have been charged with crimes and who are awaiting trial, but to whom the courts have concluded that it would not be appropriate to grant bail. I accept that those who have not yet been convicted of an offence but who are detained in prison awaiting trial are in a different category and that we must ensure that they are given proper care and consideration. I should also emphasise that under the Scottish system those who are awaiting trial do not have to suffer a period of detention before trial of the kind that one finds in many other countries.

Travel-to-Work Areas

Mr. Bill Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to review the assisted area status of the Blairgowrie Pitlochry Aberfeldy travel-towork area.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so.

Mr. Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if it is to be accepted, regional policy must be seen to be fair and sensible? Does my hon. Friend think that it is sensible to describe Aberfeldy, Pitlochry and Blairgowrie as a travel-to-work area when it is neither viable nor sensible to travel on those roads in the winter every day? It cannot be done. Since male unemployment in Blairgowrie has been around and over 20 per cent. since 1978, which is higher than the unemployment in Dundee, will my hon. Friend tell me why that can be said to be fair? What does he propose to do about it?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend campaigns on this matter with commendable persistence. I am sure he will be aware that a number of possible arrangements were considered

when the travel-to-work areas were established. As the system is only two years old, I think he will accept that there is a need for a period of stability before undertaking changes to the system.

Western Isles

Mr. Donald Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress on an extension of the integrated development programme in the Western Isles.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): The European Commission considers that there is no need for a full-scale extension of the integrated development programme. We have asked the Commission to consider how best to wind up the IDP in order to protect the significant achievements made. We await the Commission's response.

Mr. Stewart: I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that when the programme was inaugurated there were suggestions that there would be a follow-on extension? A number of the projects that have shown excellent results might be in danger if that extension is not arranged. Will he put pressure on the EEC to bring matters to a head as quickly as possible?

Mr. MacKay: I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. The ball is in the Commission's court, and I have recently written to remind it of that fact. We shall have to wait to see what proposals it makes, but that must he before May 1987 in order that any proposals can be rolled over from the current integrated development programme.

AIDS

Mrs. McCurley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken to ensure that all necessary provisions have been made to assist the Scottish medical profession in its assessment and containment of AIDS.

Mr. Rifkind: In addition to the issue of extensive guidance to doctors, dentists and nurses about the disease, the Government have to date allocated £1·4 million centrally to fund measures to control the spread of AIDS in Scotland.

Mrs. McCurley: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on that reply and on the excellent booklet that has been produced for educational establishments in Scotland to be used mainly by teachers? Is it possible that in the future a similar booklet may be produced for young people within these establishments to be distributed and discussed within those establishments?

Mr. Rifkind: The guidance booklet that we issued last week essentially dealt with the need for a range of sensible, hygienic precautions in schools to stop AIDS being passed on accidentally. My colleagues and I will be issuing in a few weeks time a question and answer leaflet on AIDS for teachers to use in response to children's questions. Schools have a positive role to play in that respect, and we have asked bodies such as the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum and the Scottish Health Education Group to consider what further guidance and materials should be provided.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as a result of the University Grants Committee's reductions at Aberdeen university, the department of microbiology is to lose clinical and teaching staff and that, combined with the difficulties in the Grampian health board, laboratory staff will be seriously reduced, with repercussions not only for the AIDS programme but for research into meningitis? How does the Secretary of State justify that?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that I have no departmental responsibility for the University Grants Committee, therefore I shall confine myself to the specific point about research on AIDS in Scotland. The Scottish Office is providing just under £250,000 for research on AIDS in Scotland. Other research proposals have been put forward to the Government, which will be considered in due course.

Mr. Wilson: With regard to the need to contain AIDS, will the Secretary of State explain why it has taken so long to inaugurate the proposed needle exchange system? Is it the case that it is not due to come into effect until April, and thus about three to four months will elapse, with the danger of AIDS being spread by contaminated needles continuing?

Mr. Rifkind: On 18 December we announced our intention to set up small-scale trials under medical supervision, including the counselling of drug misusers and the exchange of clean for used equipment on a onefor-one basis. That requires close co-operation with the medical profession and others in the three likely localities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee. That cannot be arranged overnight. We are equally anxious to ensure that the trials begin at the earliest possible date. It seems likely that April will be the commencement date, but that will depend on the conclusion of the detailed discussions with the medical profession and others who will be involved in the trials.

Mr. Ron Brown: Young Tories in Scotland have called for brothels to be taken into public ownership to curb the spread of AIDS and improve health standards. Will the Secretary of State accept that nationalisation is of more benefit to the community than privatisation?

Mr. Rifkind: We have no early intention of taking brothels or any other comparable establishments into public ownership. I recall that it was once remarked that Socialists disapprove of sin because it is a form of private enterprise.

Mr. Kirkwood: I hope the Secretary of State will bear in mind, when considering the pilot projects on free exchange of needles, the case that can be made for needles to be issued free to diabetics. May I use that as an example of the need for an advisory committee at central level to co-ordinate some of these difficult questions? I accept that the Government will have to confront everything, including troops returning from the Horn of Africa, and the difficulties that they create locally, when they return. I was questioned in my own constituency about when the Minister asked me whether I thought he should advise people who were proposing to get married in church to take AIDS tests beforehand. Does he accept that these questions need some strategic overall view by a central advisory committee?

Mr. Rifkind: We must try to ensure that we respond to this serious problem in a serious and responsible fashion. Some somewhat exotic suggestions about how the problem can be dealt with have often been made, but we are trying to identify ways in which the Government and the community can make a meaningful contribution to reducing the incidence of this serious disease.
The existing arrangements for diabetics provide for prescription of reusable syringes by general practitioners under the National Health Service. Although diabetics might find it more convenient to use disposable syringes, it would be difficult to justify the substantial additional cost to the NHS of general provision of disposable needles for all insulin using diabetics.
As for drug users, we are at the moment talking only about certain trial tests. We shall have to wait to see the outcome of those tests before deciding what general policy might be appropriate.

Mr. Maxton: Is the Secretary of State aware that there will be considerable anger among diabetics in Scotland as a result of that answer? May we have an assurance that none of the money that is being used for the advertising campaign on AIDS will come from the Scottish health education group's budget and thus damage its excellent work? May we also be assured that the increased number of hospital places and the doctors and nursing staff required to deal with AIDS as its incidence increases will be paid for by extra money from the Government and not represent a burden on the health boards?

Mr. Rifkind: From the hon. Gentleman's original comment, one would have thought that there were no diabetics before 1979. He should be reminded that the Labour Government saw no need to provide free syringes to diabetics, so it is somewhat hypocritical for him to suggest that there has been a fundamental change.
The money that we give for research projects on AIDS is in addition to a further £250,000 to assist the publicity campaign by the Scottish Health Education Group. We have also appointed a working group under the general manager of Lothian health board to advise on methods of caring for those who might be found to suffer from AIDS. I understand that that working group is to report fairly soon.

Education Classes (North of Scotland)

Mr. Wallace: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what support he intends to give to maintain the provision of extra-mural studies and adult education classes in the north of Scotland.

Mr. John MacKay: Education authorities are responsible for the provision of education in their areas. In addition, the Scottish Education Department gives grant to a number of voluntary organisations active in community education.

Mr. Wallace: I trust that the Minister does not need any lessons about how valuable is the provision of extra-mural classes, especially in rural parts of Scotland and the islands. Those who administer the system— certainly those in the north of Scotland—feel that withdrawal of the administration grant by the Scottish Office poses a threat to the continuation of those classes. As the Minister has accepted in correspondence with me that a very small amount of money is involved, why are the Government being so mean in withdrawing it?

Mr. MacKay: It is indeed a small amount when compared with university budgets, but the total of £53,000 for the whole of Scotland is significant when compared with the alternative priority on which we think the money should be spent— getting a Scottish version of the PICKUP scheme off the ground to give people in mid career the advantage of retraining in new skills.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Miniser agree that the PICKUP scheme in Engand and Wales has been funded by additional money, whereas in Scotland the money is coming from the same budget? Why will he not do the same as England and ensure that we get extra money for this valuable scheme?

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman must recall from his time in government that one has to order priorities in some way. When we considered the PICKUP scheme and studied the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Committee's report, which said that limited pump priming finance by Government could provide an important stimulus, we decided that it was right to do that and to find the money to enable us to fund a limited project.

Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge that the two projects address themselves to different markets and that it is wrong to take away funding for a service that affects small communities throughout the north-east and the north of Scotland and the islands in favour of a scheme that will simply not make the same provision for those people? Will he recognise that, for the small amount of money involved, he is causing grave hardship and indeed outrage among rural communities?

Mr. MacKay: I do not believe for a moment that I am causing hardship or outrage, other than in the mind of the hon. Gentleman. It is fair to point out that my Department pays grant-aid amounting to about £423,000 for the administrative costs of national voluntary organisations that provide educational activities, including encouraging adult participation, in the north of Scotland.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister not agree that these problems in the north of Scotland and elsewhere suggest that the Government place a low priority on adult education? Does that not therefore re-emphasise the need for proper funding for the Workers Educational Association? Will the Minister bear that in mind when I meet him to discuss the matter tomorrow morning?

Mr. MacKay: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall think about nothing other than the Workers Educational Association and his visit between now and tomorrow morning, but it is fair to say, as I shall point out to him, that the grant to the WEA in 1986–87 came to £184,500, which is a significant amount of money.

Forestry Commission (Planting Policy)

Mr. John Mark Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that the Forestry Commission acts upon the conclusions of the National Audit Office regarding the marginal cost-effectiveness of planting conifers on high ground in the north of Scotland, by switching its emphasis to broadleaf plantings in agricultural land further south; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John MacKay: The National Audit Office review of Forestry Commission objectives and achievements is

being considered by the Public Accounts Committee, which will report to Parliament in due course. My right hon. and learned Friend is therefore not at present in a position to make any detailed statement.

Mr. Taylor: I note that reply, but does not my hon. Friend agree that it is, in any event, a virtue to plant woodlands on less productive farmland, or even to develop golf courses there? Would that not lend a new meaning to green keeping? Does that not help to sustain the rural character of that land and a habitat for wildlife?

Mr. MacKay: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that against the background of surplus agricultural production we look at all the means of maintaining economic activity and rural life in our countryside. That is what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had in mind when he made his statement on Monday in the House.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that the initiative taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food this week to help promote the rural economy is extremely good news? Does he accept that if we are to increase broadleaved planting, as opposed to conifers, there must be an extra incentive but, at the same time, does he also accept that if we are to encourage tourism in Scotland we must be careful about blanket coniferous planting throughout the scenic areas?

Mr. MacKay: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for our policy. He will recall that the policy statement that we made as far back as July 1985, which introduced the broadleaved woodland grant scheme, was widely welcomed, and the Forestry Commission tells me that the scheme has got off to an encouraging start. My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which everyone who is interested in the countryside and in the forestry industry fully appreciates, that we need to look at both conifers and broadleaved trees as the way forward for the forestry industry and the countryside.

Mr. Lambie: Is the Minister aware that the decision by Caledonian Papers to build a paper mill in Irvine in my constituency, which is an inward investment of £250 million and will involve up to 1,500 jobs during the construction period, and 900 permanent jobs, depends on adequate supplies of timber from the public and private sectors in Scotland? Will the Minister give encouragement to the Forestry Commission to extend its activities in the highlands and southern uplands of Scotland to ensure the continuation of those timber supplies in the future?

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman shows a realistic appreciation of the importance of forestry for Scotland. I only wish that it was shared by a few other Labour Members. I add to the hon. Gentleman's valid point about the importance of this development in job terms. The plant at Irvine will require sitka spruce, which is often a species much maligned by the environmental conservation lobby. That is the species that the industry wants. It is because of that species that the company is coming to Scotland and to Irvine.

Mr. Pollock: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he recently visited the plant of Highland Forest Products near Inverness? Does he agree that that is a welcome addition, in a modern framework, to the forestry enterprise,


substantially relying as it does on locally grown products and bringing a welcome infusion of new jobs to the area'? In short, is that not the sort of development in rural areas that we wish to encourage, and will the Scottish Office do precisely that?

Mr. MacKay: I am happy to respond positively to my hon. Friend, just as I did to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie). Highland Forest Products has a factory employing about 100 people in the plant and about 300 to 400 people throughout the countryside in the north-east of Scotland. Once again, the plant requires pine trees, the coniferous trees that some of the critics rail against so much. Again, that underlines the point that we need these trees if we are to have a proper forest industry.

Mr. Hardy: Given the enormous dependency on imported timber products and the hugh cereal surpluses that the Government will fail to tackle by their recently announced policy, is it not desirable to transfer some of the rich grade 1 and grade 2 low level arable areas in England to forestry purposes to meet the need—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is about Scotland.

Mr. Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This question is about Scotland.

Mr. Hardy: No, forestry.

Mr. Speaker: No, it is about Scotland.

Mr. Corrie: I support what the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) has said. Could not many areas in Scotland be planted with coniferous trees without spoiling the environment? I support any move to put in hardwood trees, but if land is set aside for such trees, should not agriculture have some compensation for the output of that land?

Mr. MacKay: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has a major constituency interest in the plant at Irvine. I also agree about the need for a balance between broadleaf and conifer. It is important that farmers take advantage of the scheme announced on Monday to plant conifers and deciduous trees in land, which, up to now, has not been considered for tree planting.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister give us an assurance that the changes announced this week by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England will not prejudice the Scottish Office's lead on forestry'? Will he also give us an assurance that the Forestry Commission will play an integral part in the expansion of forestry and that the Government's plans to privatise have been shelved for ever?

Mr. MacKay: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Office will continue to play the lead role in forestry. The Forestry Commission has an important role to play. It will be called upon to administer the farm forestry scheme, as it does the scheme on private planting, and its important role in the forestry industry has greatly helped projects such as Kaukas and Highland Forest Products get off the ground in Scotland.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the announcement made earlier this week, which will help ordinary farmers, as opposed to pop stars, to plant woodlands. Will he confirm that the cost to public funds

of the 40 jobs created by Fountain Forestry in the flow country is in excess of £300,000 per job? Is this a useful way to use public money, especially when more jobs could be created elsewhere from the same resources?

Mr. MacKay: I am afraid that my hon. Friend will have to put down a specific question before I can answer about the exact figure that he mentions. I believe that there is room for both forestry and the open land for which many of the environmentalists and conservationists ask. The committee that we have set up in the Scottish Office to look into the interaction between wildlife and planting in the north of Scotland will help us to find a reasonable solution that will be in the interest of the countryside in that part of Scotland.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware that one of the many clangers dropped by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food came when he said:
The growing of trees under these proposals will be much more attractive to people in the marginal areas".—[Official Report, 9 February 1987; Vol. 110, c. 72.]
This must point to more blanket afforestation in the Highlands. If the Minister hopes to curtail the surplus agricultural produce and protect the rural environment, will he take this opportunity to explain how he expects the Forestry Commission or the private sector to achieve an appropriate increase in tree planting on the low ground?

Mr. MacKay: One of the ways in which that can be achieved is to act on the decision that was announced a few months ago that we would take a more relaxed view to planting on land further down the hill. That view has been made perfectly clear to the forestry industry.

Mr. Home Robertson: That is not economic.

Mr. MacKay: I do not agree with the comments made from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). Both large-scale forestry— I prefer to use that phrase rather than blanket-forestry—and farm forestry have an important role to play. I would have preferred to hear from the hon. Gentleman that he supported the development of the forestry industry and the jobs that are coming to Scotland as a result.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hundreds of square miles of forestry in my constituency contribute handsomely to the local economy? Does he further agree that it is important that a balance is retained between the needs of tourism and forestry and that that balance has been substantially retained in many areas? Does he accept that the welcome given by the vice-president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland to the Government's proposals show that we are moving along the right lines?

Mr. MacKay: I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that the National Farmers Union of Scotland has made a positive response to the statement made by my right hon. Friend last Monday. The Scottish Farmers Union has warmly welcomed the statement, and Opposition Members would be well advised to heed its words. My hon. Friend is equally correct when he said that we have to strike a sensible balance between planting and the needs of conservation interests and the needs of tourism. That can be achieved, and in many parts of Scotland, including the area that I represent, that has been achieved.

Severe Weather (Financial Assistance)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional financial help he intends to give local authorities as a consequence of extra expenditure incurred during the exceptional cold snap in January.

The Paliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): Rate support grant is paid in aid of local authority services generally. The grant paid to authorities this year, and promised for next, is generous. Prudent authorities make provision for contingencies such as bad winter weather, and in the case of road maintenance the incidence of snow is specifically taken into account, on an authority-by-authority basis, in assessing expenditure need. I therefore see no reason for any special arrangements in this case.

Mr. Eadie: Is the Minister aware that that is a dusty and unsatisfactory answer? He must be aware that because of the cold snap local authorities incurred additional expenditure in their roads, social works and housing departments because of burst pipes. Is he further aware that yesterday the Department of Energy said that there were 15,000 extra calls on the Monergy hot line as a consequence of the cold snap? Is the Minister really saying to local authorities "You're getting nowt" bearing in mind that the winter has only just started?

Mr. Ancram: I want to take this opportunity first to congratulate local authorities and their workers on the great efforts that they have made to keep our roads clear. Although the severe weather did not last long, it made life difficult for a time and the authorities responded quickly and efficiently. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's point, I must tell him that snowfall and snow lying are not new occurrences this year. That has happened during many winters in Scotland. The figures for 1982–83, 1983–84 and 1984–85 reveal that in Lothian the average number of days when snow was lying were 13·2, 22·2, and 19·8 respectively. That is not a new occurrence and authorities are well able to deal with it. With regard to social work, my right hon. and learned Friend made provision of more than £300 million for social work in 1986–87. There is ample room for sensible management for unexpected costs within that total.

Mr. McQuarrie: While I agree with my hon. Friend that rate support grant was a little more generous this year, especially in Grampian and Banff and Buchan, will he accept that there are cold snaps and cold snaps, and that in the north-east of Scotland in my constituency we had a very severe cold snap this winter? We certainly require some additional assistance towards the problems that have been created, because the local authority direct labour department was called out on many occasions in excess of the normal procedure.

Mr. Ancram: I note my hon. Friend's comments and I appreciate the reasons why he has made them. However, in the time that I have held my present responsibilities, this is not the first time that Grampian has suffered from cold weather during the winter. It is for that reason that the client group assessments in their secondary indicators make provision on a historical basis for road maintenance in particular, which is the expenditure most affected by cold weather.

Mr. Martin: Does the Minister agree that cold snaps not only make life difficult for people but cause severe

danger, especially to the elderly? Does he know that in my constituency two people died during the cold snap and many elderly people could not get out of their houses, because my constituency covers one of the highest points in the city? Should not more assistance be given to the social work department and the roads department to make conditions safer, especially for the elderly?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman referred spcifically to elderly people. The Government have shown their willingness to respond flexibly to the needs of the elderly and other vulnerable groups with the £5 weekly allowance. In Scotland more than 82,000 claimants have already received two payments, with 32,000 cases still in the pipeline, which is a much higher figure than some of our critics suggested. It comes ill from the hon. Gentleman to suggest that cold weather was invented by this Government. It is worth remembering that under the Labour Government expenditure on heating additions amounted to only £90 million, as opposed to more than £400 million under this Government.

Prosperity

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the relative prosperity of Scotland compared with the rest of Great Britain.

Mr. Lang: The standard of living of most Scots compares favourably with most of the rest of Great Britain. In terms of average male weekly earnings, the latest figures for 1985 show that only the south-east fared better.

Mr. Henderson: Does this not show that a Conservative Government are good for the Scots, especially since, under this Government, those who depend upon health, social and other vital services such as education receive more per head of the population in Scotland than they do south of the border?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right as regards identifiable public expenditure. He may also wish to know that in terms of gross domestic product per head and personal disposable income, Scotland lies third in the list of regions in the United Kingdom.

Mr. James Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that since the new year statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland on the potential boom in Scotland the Caterpillar tractor company has decided to draw stumps and close the factory en bloc. Since then there have been further redundancies in my constituency. Is it not about time that we had a statement from the Minister or from the Secretary of State as to the Government's intentions in respect of Caterpillar?

Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend's views about Caterpillar are well know. However, I am glad to say that what happened with Caterpillar does not reflect the general view of overseas companies with regard to investment in Scotland. During the past seven years about £1·8 billion of inward investment has been attracted to Scotland.

Mr. Fallon: Will my hon. Friend confirm that last year identifiable public expenditure per head was 27 per cent. higher in Scotland than it was in England and that housing


expenditure per head was about 90 per cent. higher? Is it not time that this tartan featherbedding was subject to an independent audit?

Mr. Lang: Identifiable public expenditure has been higher in Scotland in several areas, reflecting the special needs of Scotland which my hon. Friend, as a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament, would wish to support.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister reflect on the fact that in the 1960s we were worried that Scotland had too large a share of the old and declining industries and not enough of the new dynamic industries, but that under the Conservative Government there has been a huge diminution in the older established industries such as coal, steel and shipbuilding and not enough growth, even with all the advantages of North sea oil, in the new dynamic industries? There is also an absence in Scotland of decision-making headquarters of companies. Does the Minister concede that a regional policy which suits the south-east of England does not necessarily suit Scotland, which should have a more independent view of its economic future?

Mr. Lang: I am glad to assure the hon. Gentleman that the number of people self-employed in Scotland has increased by about a quarter during the past seven years. Although there has been a loss of jobs in manufacturing industry, it is significant that output has been almost hack at the 1979 levels, with many fewer workers, thus reflecting the dramatic increase in productivity, which is the best guarantee of secure jobs in the future.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent announcement of a multi-million pound investment at Mearns Cross in my constituency? Is he further aware that that follows a major investment announced by English Sewing in manufacturing industry at Neilston and Newton Mearns in my constituency? Do not those practical examples give the lie to the nonsense talked by Opposition Members about the Scottish economy?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The quality of the Scottish work force and the other attractions of locating in Scotland are manifest and are reflected in the number of companies coming to Scotland.

Mr. John David Taylor: Does the Minister realise that Scottish Unionists will not be voting for Conservative candidates at the next election, not simply because they supported the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but because Scottish Ministers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Member from going wide of the question. Will he relate his question to Scottish prosperity?

Mr. Taylor: It is very much related to the Scottish economy. I am giving the second reason why Scottish Unionists will not be voting. It is because Scottish Ministers have clearly put London policies before the interests of the Scots.

Mr. Lang: I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, in this United Kingdom Parliament, would pay tribute to the very generous help that has gone to Northern Ireland from the British Government.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Bearing in mind that Scotland has more Members of Parliament per head than England, does my hon. Friend believe that this public expenditure results in more, or less, prosperity for Scotland?

Mr. Lang: I shall answer my hon. Friend by pointing out that productivity on the Government side of the House is very much greater than on the Opposition side.

Dr. Godman: Many people in my constituency are emphatically denied a share in this so-called prosperity. Will the Secretary of State for Scotland now respond to the request that I made to him some three weeks ago for a feasibility study into potential projects in the lower Clyde area to be conducted by, say, Planning Industrial Economic Development Advisers or some other such consultancy firm? Such a study is desperately needed.

Mr. Lang: I certainly recognise the special difficulties in the Inverclyde area. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Inverclyde initiative is giving close attention to this. My right hon. and learned Friend is also considering what further measures may be brought to bear in that area.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend realise that those of us who live in the midlands look north with envy to Scotland, in appreciating the levels of income, as he has mentioned, and of public expenditure? Will my hon. Friend tell us the secret of his success?

Mr. Lang: I would advise my hon. Friend to return to Scotland, where he will find that average earnings are up threefold over the past 10 years and the gross domestic product has doubled since 1977.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister note that on the Opposition side, at least, we do not regard the news of a shopping development in Newton Mearns as the yardstick against which we ought to measure national success? Can he perhaps comment on his extraordinary boast that after eight years of Conservative success he can only say that we have almost got industrial investment back to 1979 levels?
May I suggest to the assorted comics on the Government Benches who have taken part in this interlude that we have in Scotland some 360,000 people in the dole queues and that we were alone in the United Kingdom last month in seeing our seasonally adjusted unemployment figures rise? If we want a constructive debate, will the Minister say what he is doing to support the stand by the Caterpillar work force, who do not want to add to the total of 192,000 manufacturing jobs lost under this Government? Will he recognise that we expect positive steps to be taken to find another operator or, as a last resort, to provide jobs in the plant for the work force, and that a generalised statement of good intentions or of a feeling of outrage is no substitute for specific and effective action?

Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman has read the statement that I made yesterday, he will be well aware of the Government's continuing commitment to finding alternative employment for the work force at the Caterpillar plant. As regards manufacturing jobs, if he had listened to the answer that I gave earlier he would have realised that the point I was making was not so much about output as about productivity. The very demonstration of the increased productivity that has resulted over the past few years is the best guarantee of continuing employment provision in Scotland.

Agricultural Production

Mr. Fairbairn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to sustain the rural economy in the light of policies aimed at reducing agricultural production.

Mr. Rifkind: The Government are committed to maintaining a healthy rural economy in Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced a number of measures to the House on Monday 9 February.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will my right hon. and learned Friend, in acknowledging the welcome given by the Scottish National Farmers Union to the proposals announced this week, also take time to read my article in the Glasgow Herald, if he can find it in the Library, from which place somebody seems to have nicked it? That article proposes that we should be given special grants in Scotland to save the steadlings and farm buildings and set up a rural population to sustain a rural economy.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. and learned Friend is a source of many new ideas that could be of value in dealing with the problem. We are prepared to consider constructively any proposals for the diversification of the rural economy in order to ensure that the income base for the farming community and for the rural community is as broad as possible.

Mr. Maclennan: Is it not the case that in Scotland, as in England, no additional expenditure is to be incurred on these rural initiatives?

Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, one of the Government's objectives is to reduce the structural surpluses in the European Community. That itself would lead to savings on current expenditure. The proposal announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture would indeed involve substantial expenditure of a kind that he himself described to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Procurator Fiscal Service

Mr. Pollock: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland whether he has any plans to review the resources available to the procurator fiscal service; and if he will make a statement.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): The resources of the Crown Office and procurator fiscal service have recently been reviewed and, subject to parliamentary approval, the 1986–87 cash limit for Class XX, Vote 20 will be increased by £180,000. Class XX, Vote 21 provision will be increased by £150,000.

Mr. Pollock: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. In view of the current pressures on the procurator fiscal's office in Glasgow, why was it necessary for the procurator fiscal to be involved in the obtaining of a search warrant recently for the BBC offices in Glasgow?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It was in accordance with both proper and accepted practice and procedure in Scotland in such circumstances for the police to make a request to the procurator fiscal to make application on their behalf to the sheriff. In deciding whether it was

proper to present such an application, the procurator fiscal had to be satisfied as to the legal justification for the application. In that regard he would consider the information to be sworn to by the police and the known attitude of the BBC to the requirement of due legal process. He sought to ensure that the warrant was sufficient to meet its purpose and did not go beyond what was required. With his legal experience, I hope my hon. Friend will recognise that the course followed there and the relationship between the police and the procurator fiscal were appropriate in the circumstances.

Mr. Dalyell: Was Professor Bradley right, or wrong, in suggesting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong."] If he is wrong, let it be said where he is wrong. Was he right, or wrong, in suggesting that the procurator fiscal and the Lord Advocate, in the mode and style of their investigation, had to take into account the interests and the feelings of the victim? In this case was not the major victim the Foreign Office? When did the Crown Office first approach or talk to the Foreign Office, or when did the Foreign Office first approach or talk to the Crown Office?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: To answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question first, in no circumstances and at no time did the Crown Office contact the Foreign Office, nor indeed was there any pressure or approach from the Foreign Office to the Crown Office. Although I studied under Professor Bradley, I regret to say that I do not consider that his statement of the law, as I saw it reported in The Independent today, is wholly correct. I would not dissent in any way from what he has to say with regard to consideration of the public interest where there is—

Mr. Dalyell: Is he wrong?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If the hon. Gentleman would give me half a moment I shall try to answer his question. I do not dissent from what Professor Bradley has to say about the consideration of the public interest once a stage of consideration of prosecution is reached. However, I do not agree, nor would my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate agree, that it would be his practice to consult any other Minister when considering applications for search warrants in the course of a criminal investigation.

Sir Alex Fletcher: In considering the resources in Glasgow, is my hon. and learned Friend still satisfied that the attitude of the BBC at the highest level was such that the police had no alternative but to obtain a search warrant and raid the Glasgow premises? Can he assure the House that every reasonable possibility was covered by the police before this drastic action was taken?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The BBC was perfectly within its legal rights in insisting that if any action was to be taken against it in relation to material that it held, due legal process should be carried through. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock), one of the known factors at the time when the application was considered by the procurator fiscal was that at a senior level the BBC took the view that if those investigating this matter wanted material from the BBC, it was for them to follow due legal process. The BBC had a right to insist on that and, clearly if it did insist, that excluded the possibility of such material being handed


over to the investigating authorities without the necessity for a search warrant, as is sometimes the case in some circumstances.

Mr. Wallace: It has been said on a number of occasions by some people that the showing of the Zircon film last week in Edinburgh and Glasgow could put those who saw it in breach of the Official Secrets Act. Does the Solicitor-General think that the procurator fiscal's office has sufficient resources to deal with such a vast number of cases? Given that the Government and the Leader of the Opposition think that it endangers national security, why did the Government not seek to take out an interim interdict against the showing of these films?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, following the New Statesman article, information was already in the public domain, as it were, and the prospects of obtaining an interim interdict or an interdict in perpetuity in Scotland were thereby limited. I am certainly not answerable for the views of the Leader of the Opposition, and I am even loss answerable for the disagreements that have opened between him and his Back Benchers.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that sufficient resources are available to the procurator fiscal? If they are riot, will he look at those resources and recruit people of the highest calibre so that we may have the best possible people prosecuting when we want to bring prosecutions in cases such as the BBC case? That will ensure that we can make the charges stick.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I shall resist the temptation to make any observations about the last point made by my hon. Friend. I know that he has a continuing interest in the affairs of the procurator fiscal service. I am encouraged by the fact that there is some agreement to increase the Vote, and I hope that the House will approve the Vote. I share my hon. Friend's view that, through the procurator fiscal service in Scotland, we probably enjoy the finest prosecution system in the world.

Mr. Dewar: I am sure the Solicitor-General will agree that he was aware that a warrant was in existence in England at the time when he considered the Scottish process. Did he think about restricting and narrowing the scope of the warrant in Scotland, in the way that it was done in England? Does he agree that that might well have stopped some of the controversy and damage that has flowed from this lamentable incident?
We know that the Secretary of State for Scotland was informed on the day on which the warrant was obtained. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that that was Friday 30 January, and can he say when on that day the Secretary of State was advised by his office? Will he again categorically confirm, because I want to be absolutely clear beyond all doubt, that there was no consultation at any time about the application, the drawing or the exercise of the warrant, with any of his ministerial colleagues outside the Law Officers?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I shall start by answering the hon. Gentleman's last point. I confirm yet

again that in the drawing up of the petition and the warrant, in considering whether such an application should be made to the sheriff and in arranging for its execution there was no pressure and nothing was done in relation to any other Ministers, least of all, as the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends seem to think, with No. 10 Downing street or with any other office.
I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has written to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. With respect, it seems to me that this is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend to answer. I shall now deal with the major part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Of course there was an awareness that a warrant had been obtained in England. It was obtained under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The hon. Gentleman ought to appreciate that such a warrant would not have any validity in Scotland. I wish that he would go back to the letter that I sent him and read it rather more carefully, together with the petition and the crave attached to it. Had the hon. Gentleman looked at it, he would have realised that it referred explicitly to highly classified information. If he had read as far as the first paragraph of the petition, he would know that it referred to highly classified information contained in the article in the New Statesman.

North and South Courts (Glasgow)

Mr. Fairbairn: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland on how many days the north and south courts in Glasgow were used for High Court prosecutions in 1956, 1966, 1976 and 1986; and if he will estimate trends over the next 10 years.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The figures are 55, 143, 250 and 425 days respectively. In addition, in 1986 the High Court sat in other courts in Glasgow on 190 days. It is not practicable to make detailed estimates of trends over the next 10 years.

Mr. Fairbairn: In view of the escalating figures that my hon. and learned Friend has given to the House, does he recall that when we have both been prosecuting or defending major cases in the High Court in Glasgow, we sometimes had to be unnecessarily close to one another? Will he use his influence with the Secretary of State, who may have a more distant recollection of those matters, and suggest that if we go for option 1 for the High Court we would foreclose the possibility of enlarging those courts, and persuade him to go for option 2, so that he and I will never have to be so close together that we fall out?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am aware of the views that my hon. and learned Friend has expressed about the redevelopment of the judiciary buildings in Glasgow. He clearly appreciates that it is essential) y a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who, as he knows, has consulted on plans to increase the number of court rooms. I and my right hon. and learned Friend are aware of my hon. and learned Friend's views.

Privilege

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At 10.14 pm last night the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—I have obviously given him notice of this—purported to raise with you what he described as a "point of privilege".
It would be of tremendous benefit to the House, Mr. Speaker, if you would remind us of the clear resolution passed on 6 February 1978, which laid down the procedure for raising a point of privilege. I can summarise it as giving you written notice of a complaint of breach of privilege after that breach had occurred. Should you find that a prima facie case had been made, you would notify the hon. Member of that in writing. He would then rise in his place and move that the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
I think that it would be unfortunate if violence were done to that resolution by a precendent created last night. Would you reiterate that resolution, Mr. Speaker?
Secondly, on the substance of what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said, if he now, after the event, claims that it was a point of order and not one of privilege, would it not be as well to remind the House and the right hon. Gentleman that Speaker after Speaker has declared that he would not give rulings on hypothetical points as opposed to questioning events which have actually occurred?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) for raising that point. It is perfectly true that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said in his submission that he was raising a matter of privilege. It was not a matter of privilege; I think that it was a slip of the tongue, and I took it to be so.
I readily confirm what the hon. Member for Tiverton said—that a complaint of breach of privilege should not be made on the Floor of the House, but sent to me in writing.
Later—

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I was a moment late and missed the statement that you have just made. However, when I saw you last night, I raised with you the question of a possible aspect of privilege and notified you of that. You kindly said that I could rise at 10.15 pm, which I did. In my statement I said that the matter related to privilege, which I have raised with you privately, and I checked what I had said in Hansard. That was what I said, and if I made a mistake in putting it into the wrong category, I wish to apologise to you and to the House.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Peter Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am extremely sorry to raise this matter, but you will recall that when we considered Question No. 6 on the Order Paper you would not allow my question to proceed, on the grounds that you interpreted the question as applying solely to Scotland. If you look at Question No. 6 you will see that it referred to the transfer of forestry planting from the north of Scotland further south. I submit that my question was entirely in order and I regret that I shall not now receive a ministerial answer.

Mr. Speaker: I think that I should apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I took "further south" to mean further south in Scotland, since the question was one for the Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman would have been totally in order if he had raised his question on Question No. 9 on sustaining the
rural economy in the light of policies aimed at reducing agricultural production".
I am sorry, but I cannot do anything about it now.

Mr. Hardy: Arising from that, Mr. Speaker, do you therefore not accept that it is especially difficult for English Members who are interested in forestry matters, because we do not have any other alternative than to raise such matters at Scottish Question Time?

Mr. Speaker: I called a number of English Members during Scottish Questions today. [Interruption.] Scottish Members have an equal right to be called during English Questions. Therefore, it is only fair that English Members should have the right to be called during Scottish Questions.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Arising out of questions to the Solicitor-General for Scotland, I beg to move the Adjournment of the House under SO 20 on the subject of the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not had notice of that. I am dealing with points of order at the moment.

Division Lists

Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be concerned to ensure the accuracy of Hansard, for history and for our own benefit. I think that there must be a mistake in today's Hansard, which shows that once again the alliance parties voted against each other in the Division last night. It proves that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, (Mr. Hughes) voted against the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). Therefore, there must be a mistake in Hansard—[Interruption.]

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think that we should hear the explanation.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was unfortunately absent.

State Security

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to my earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising out of questions it will be in your recollection that I came to see you, at your request, on this subject on Monday, at 2 pm in your house, arising out of questions—and no one could know the answers to those questions. Therefore, I apologise for any discourtesy in not giving you full notice that I wish to raise, under Standing Order No. 20,
the role of the Law Officers and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in relation to the police entry into the BBC in Glasgow.
First of all, I have to persuade you, Mr. Speaker. that the matter is important. It is important because it is simply not credible that the Lord Advocate could have properly performed his duties without informing himself as to the damage to the public interest caused by the Zircon film. Specifically, how does the Lord Advocate assess the damage to the public interest? How does the noble Lord Cameron of Lochbroom alone assess the damage to the public interest of a wholesale search of the BBC? May there not be a changing public interest as events proceed? Must there not come a time when Ministers say to themselves, "For heaven's sake, we have gone far enough."? [Interruption.]—

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take the point of order afterwards. May I just say that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is perfectly in order to make this SO 20 application arising out of the answer that he received to his question. However, he must make the case that it is urgent, specific and important.

Mr. Dalyell: How does Lord Cameron of Lochbroom assess the security interests without consulting the Foreign Office?

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman always gets away with it—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) must contain himself, please.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member is always abusing the procedures of the House, and it is time it was stopped.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Linlithgow has as much right as anybody to submit an application under Standing Order No. 20 arising from a question which has just been answered. It is not an abuse. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) would also have that right, if he chose to exercise it.

Mr. Dalyell: Many more serious Conservative Members know that deep legal issues are involved. This is not a matter of cheap party politics. As the scene unfolds, is there not a continuing reassessment of the public interest? That is an important point.
I now have to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is definite. It is definite because it relates to the evidence that was given by a distinguished Conservative Attorney-General, Sir Peter Rawlinson, to the Franks Committee in 1972. He said:

In exercising this discretion the factors which the Attorney-General of the day takes into account are

1) The strength of the evidence.
2) The degree of culpability of the potential defendant."—

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dalyell: "3) The damage to the Public Interest, which has resulted from the disclosure.
4) The effect of Prosecution on the Public Interest."
The noble Lord, Lord Rawlinson as he now is, said:
In considering factors relating to the Public Interest, I, and my predecessors, may consult other Ministers so that"—

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Dalyell: we are in a better position to assess the damage which has been caused and the effect which the Prosecution may have on the Public Interest.
The important legal point is whether the Solicitor-General is right or Professor Bradley—on mutatis mutandis, warrant and prosecution—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time—

Mr. Dalyell: Finally—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please bring me the title of his application under Standing Order No. 20?

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: No. I want the title of the hon. Gentleman's application under Standing Order No. 20.

Mr. Dickens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: It is sheer intimidation, that is what it is.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the role of the Law Officers and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in relation to the police entry into the BBC in Glasgow.
I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said in his submission, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is meant to be helpful—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not seek to challenge my ruling.

Mr. Williams: Quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was challenging the Chair and saying that you were not carrying out your duties. He is the one who should apologise.
My point of order is this. It is important for hon. Members to refresh their memories on the rules. Is it not a fact that we cannot raise a point of order in the middle of a Standing Order No. 20 application? If that is the case, it may help to cool future proceedings if, instead of hon. Members hopping up and down all the time, creating


difficulties for you, Mr. Speaker, you were to remind the House of that rule. Then perhaps we could have more orderly conduct.

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Let us take them all at once. Mr. Forth first.

Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you help the House in the context of what has just happened and remind us of the criterion for making an application under Standing Order No. 20? There is genuine confusion about whether anything goes within a particular time limit or whether only a specific matter of urgency must be raised and the substance cannot be argued during the submission. It would help the House if you would remind us and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) of the correct method of submitting a Standing Order No. 20 application.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. Member have a point of order on this matter? If so, I shall deal with them all at once.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Dickens: rose—

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does it not strike you as rather strange that writs should have been issued to stop a film being shown—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with this matter. Mr. Dickens.

Mr. Dickens: I am much obliged, Sir. On a point of order, you will recall that in the past, whenever I have

made a Standing Order No. 20 application, I have obeyed the courtesies of the House and have kept strictly within the three-minute time limit to which we are all supposed to adhere. This was not done today. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) abused the courtesies of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The trouble is that points of order were raised when the hon. Gentleman was making his Standing Order No. 20 application. Therefore, I had to take it into account in assessing whether his three minutes had elapsed. It is far better—I quite agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth)—that points of order should not be raised in the middle of an SO 20 application. As to the hon. Member's question, I am pleased to reaffirm that, normally, applications under Standing Order No. 20 should be submitted to me by noon. But if a matter suddenly occurs subsequently in the Chamber, it is perfectly legitimate for an hon. Member to raise the matter under the Standing Order No. 20 procedure. It does not happen often, but it is possible to do it, and it happened today.

Mr. Michael Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you saying that if an emergency arises in the Chamber, that emergency normally relates, as far as you are concerned, only to Question Time emergencies, or does it relate to any time?

Mr. Speaker: Applications under Standing Order No. 20 must be raised at their proper time, which normally is immediately after statements, or, as happened today, when there are no statements, immediately after Question Time.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 27 FEBRUARY 1987

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Robert Banks
Mr. Michael Marshall
Mr. Tony Favell

Parental Leave

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a statutory right to a period of parental leave for working parents of young children; to make provision for the establishment of a parental leave fund for the reimbursement of payment made during parental leave; and for connected purposes.
This is a radical and progressive measure for parents and children. I am proud that, as I understand it, this is the first time that a parental leave Bill has been presented to the House of Commons. In many ways, that is surprising, as the need for such a Bill is now widely recognised. Such Bills are widely available elsewhere in Europe. For example, 10 of the 12 EEC countries have such provisions. Britain is almost alone in denying working fathers leave for child care. My Bill rectifies that situation.
An employee will become entitled to parental leave when he or she is the parent of a child under two years of age, or of a disabled or adopted child under five years of age. The leave entitlement that I propose is 13 weeks for each parent when both are in paid employment, 26 weeks when an employee is a single parent, and four weeks for an employed parent when the other parent is not eligible for parental leave because of unemployment, for example. Part-time workers will get a pro rata leave entitlement. Parents will suffer no loss of basic pay for taking parental leave. They will be given the right to return to the same or similar work after an absence for child care. The Government will be empowered to establish a fund to reimburse some or all payments made for parental leave.
Parental leave is different from maternity and paternity leave. Maternity leave is a minimum period of leave of absence for the mother before and after the birth. Paternity leave, where it is allowed, gives some time off for the father at the birth of the new-born child and to support the mother immediately after the birth. Parental leave, by contrast, allows time off after the expiry of maternity and paternity leave over a longer period to care for the young baby. It is available equally to both men and women.
My Bill specifically divides the entitlement equally between the mother and the father—three months each. It is not transferable. I have learnt from the Swedish example, where men, for various reasons, transfer their leave to their wives, thus curtailing many of the benefits to be derived from parental leave. As the Equal Opportunities Commission pointed out, however it is used it is essential to ensure that fathers not only have the right to parental leave but take it up themselves instead of transferring their leave entitlement to the mother. Non-transferability, therefore, emphasises both the rights and the responsibilities of fathers in caring for their young children.
The benefits of parental leave are enormous. I have identified at least five benefits to mothers and fathers. First, it helps to promote equal opportunities in employment for women. Childbirth and child rearing in the overwhelming majority of cases result in a woman being denied equal employment opportunities. That is not her choice. Choice is denied her. The options that are available to a mother who might want to resume work are limited. If work is available, often it means a return to employment conditions that make no allowance for the

new circumstances of the mother, so parental leave promotes equal opportunities by giving women more options and more choice, knowing that time off is available for both herself and her husband to look after the baby and greater flexibility in resuming paid work.
Secondly, it helps women to overcome the damaging discontinuity in their employment. The Government's own women and employment study of 1984 showed that a mother of two is taken out of the labour force for an average of seven years because of her child care responsibilities. Employment rates for women with young children are very low in Britain—only a half of those in the United States and France and only a quarter of those in Sweden and Germany. The jobs that they manage to obtain are often poor-calibre, low-paid jobs that are mostly part time and that fail fully to use them or reward them for their skills. In addition, there are the long-term effects on a woman's career and income. For example, the loss of earnings for a typical mother of two could amount to £135,000 over her working life. Parental leave counters that.
The third benefit is that parental leave more fairly distributes responsibility for child care between the parents. Not only is this practically the case, but there is also an attitude-changing aspect, for the better. It challenges the view that child care is purely a woman's role. Instead, looking after children becomes recognised as the parents' joint responsibility.
Fourthly, parental leave improves family and child welfare. It helps in a small but important way to enable a mother and a father to work together as a team with their young baby. They are both more available to share the responsibilities, the burdens and the joys.
The fifth benefit is that parental leave gives dads a better deal. They have more time to spend with their young children and a better opportunity to fulfil their role as fathers. My Bill recognises that dads have both responsibilities and rights.
Of course, there are costs. For the EEC scheme, it would be between £31 million and £45 million. Mine would be more, because it is better, but it would still be well below 0·1 per cent. of the total wages and salaries bill and it could be shared between employers and the Treasury. However, these costs have to he set against the enormous benefits to individual mothers and fathers that I have just stated.
The fact is that parental leave creates jobs. It is estimated that it would create approximately 9,000 jobs. Peter Moss, the expert adviser to the House of Lords Sub-Committee that is looking at the EEC's parental leave proposals, said:
Child-related discontinuity of employment does riot involve losses only for individual women. To the economy as a whole, it represents a massive underutilisation of human resources, a waste of skills and experience that has been taken for granted by successive Governments with an amazing indifference. There are similar losses to individual employers.
The balance of argument about parental leave is that it is beneficial. That is why the rest of Europe has begun to implement it, and it is the Government who have been the obstacle in Britain.
Parental leave is not a panacea on its own; it must accompany other advances, such as better maternity provision, paternity leave as a statutory right, leave for family reasons such as a child's illness, and a Government


boost to workplace nurseries and local authority childcare provision. Then we would be talking about policies for the family and against child abuse and neglect.
I pay tribute to the Maternity Alliance, which helped me with the Bill, and its maternity emergency campaign, of which parental leave is a part. It is holding a national rally at Central hall, Westminster on Monday 6 April, which will get widespread support. It kindly gave me a badge, which I am wearing. It says: "Parents care, care for parents." My Parental Leave Bill does just that.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Ms. Jo Richardson, Mrs. Margaret Beckett, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Miss Joan Maynard, Ms. Clare Short, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Bob Clay, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Dave Nellist.

PARENTAL LEAVE

Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to introduce a statutory right to a period of parental leave for working parents of young children; to make provision for the establishment of a parental leave fund for the reimbursement of payment made during parental leave; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 March and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) to behave in a child-like and imbecile manner while my hon. Friend was trying to introduce his Bill to improve the lot of the children of Britain?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that we will have no display of bad manners in the Chamber. We are supposed to set an example.

Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 19th February 1987.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 19th February may continue until Ten o'clock, whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 20th February.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatiory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on first allotted day

7.—(1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others);

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any Amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that Amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall he postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—

"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed to on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;

"the Bill" means the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill;

"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;

"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

When I announced last Thursday that this motion would be the first item of today's business, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) pointed out the
narrow distinction…between filibustering and natural verbosity"—[Official Report, 5 February 1987; Vol. 109, c. 1149.]
on the part of Scottish Members and urged me to reconsider the motion. While I have not been able to do so, his words reminded me of the only occasion previously when I have taken part in a Scottish debate. Almost three years ago, on 5 March 1984, I moved the timetable motion on the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill. On that occasion, only seven clauses out of 17 had been considered in 82 hours of Committee sittings. Progress has been greater during the Committee consideration of the Bill, but not so great that we believe consideration of the Bill could be more satisfactorily completed under the measured arrangements set out in the motion before us. I shall say more about those arrangements and progress so far in a moment, but first I should turn to the substance of the Bill.
The proposals contained in the Bill are radical and wide-ranging. They would bring an end to the contentious system of domestic rating. In its place, the Bill would introduce community charges. The personal community charge will be the basis of the new system and will be payable to the local authority by each adult whose sole or main residence is in that area. A standard community charge would be payable in respect of second homes, and a collective community charge would be payable by the owners of premises where the residents stay for only short periods. There will also be a rebate scheme, which will ensure that those who are on the lowest incomes will not have to pay the full community charge. The Bill also contains proposals to reform the system of non-domestic rating. That will cover the period until the longer-term


introduction of a uniform business rate. I realise that these broad principles are only too familiar to hon. Members who have served on the Standing Committee. Even so, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to deal with them in more detail. There should be no doubt, however, that they represent a determined response to the challenge of finding an alternative to the present discredited rating system.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Keep a straight face.

Mr. Biffen: When confronted by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), that exhortation is particularly difficult to comply with.
Proposals so far-reaching and fundamental in nature do, of course, require consultation and careful consideration. These have received both. The debate on the reform of the rate system has been an important item on the political agenda for many years. A new development in that discussion was marked in January last year when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales published the Green Paper "Paying for Local Government". This invited, and received, comments from organisations and individuals about the structure of the proposed changes. The comments led to the modification of the Green Paper proposals in some respects, for example the circumstances in which a collective rather than a personal community charge would be payable. Thus, even before my right hon. and learned Friend introduced the Bill on 27 November, its contents had had the benefit of careful scrutiny.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Whose scrutiny? Does the Leader of the House realise that the proposals for this iniquitous additional tax which is to be levied on working-class people and their families in Scotland probably makes them guinea pigs for the rest of Britain and does not have the approval of the people of Scotland? Is he aware that the vast majority, as is shown in opinion polls, reject the proposals and that the vast majority of the Scottish people's elected representatives, whether at local government level or at parliamentary level, reject the proposals? Why are the Government so hell-bent on expediting the Bill, which is yet another attack on the living standards of working-class people and their families in Scotland? The Government have no mandate to impose such legislation. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends who are members of the Committee are right to fight the Bill tooth and nail. We shall continue to do that on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Biffen: The last time that I saw the hon. Gentleman in the context of this Bill was in Committee, and he was much quieter although, in that sedentary way, he was somewhat effective.
The point that I have been making is that the Bill has been available for scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman confesses that he and his colleagues have applied scrutiny to it. As to the ultimate public judgment, that clearly will lie for the future, but scrutiny has not been lacking so far. The Bill received its Second Reading after a full day's debate on 9 December last year by 258 votes to 204. The First Scottish

Standing Committee began its consideration of the Bill on 16 December, and has been sitting four times a week since then to debate the Bill.
I should refer here to the sittings motion which the Committee passed at its first meeting, enabling it to meet four times each week. The hon. Member for Provan referred to it last Thursday as
an unprecedented and provocative sittings motion"—[Official Report, 5 February 1987; Vol. 109, c.1149.]
I accept at once that the motion is clearly unusual, but there was no doubt that the Bill would require extensive consideration in Committee, and it seems to me merely realistic, rather than provocative, to accept from the start that this would be the case and to work on that basis.
While precedent should not be the sole determinant of our actions, the hon. Gentleman may find it comforting as far as precedents are concerned, if I draw his attention to the first meeting, on 10 May 1977, of the Standing Committee considering the Price Commission Bill. At that first meeting, the Committee agreed to meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 10.30 am and 4 pm. The fact that this was agreed without much debate and without a Division really proves the reasonableness of the Conservative Opposition.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Perhaps the Leader of the House might contemplate the possibility that there was agreement then because there had been consultation. That is not the case here.

Mr. Biffen: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the circumstances were broadly similar. In one instance, however, we have wise Tory legislation designed to bring about major fiscal reform and in the other we had dirigiste and interventionist Socialist legislation designed further to impede the working of our national economy.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: As a former Minister who had some responsibility for the Price Commission Bill, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was broadly welcomed by the Conservative Opposition as it moved towards dismantling price controls set in place by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?

Mr. Biffen: When I looked at that particularly anaemic legislation. I inquired whether the hon. Gentleman was a part author. I am not sure whether he was, but my research shows that he was not a member of the Committee which considered the Bill.
As for the Bill that is now under consideration, the Committee has made full use of its sittings. It has sat for 101 hours and has completed its consideration of only 20 clauses. This has included more than four sittings on clause 1, abolishing domestic rates. More than two sittings have been spent on clause 13 dealing with the collective community charge. Of course there are important questions to be raised and discussed, but the rate of progress to date might suggest that a further 70 hours or so in Committee would be required for the remaining 14 clauses before the House as a whole would have an opportunity to consider the Bill in detail. I believe that the House would prefer to have an opportunity to consider the Bill more promptly.
The motion would enable that to occur and allow the Committee to complete its consideration at a measured pace. It would enable the Committee to hold a further six sittings. I do not believe that that is unreasonable.

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there not a standing order which provides that no right hon. or hon. Member is allowed to read his speech? Is it not a measure of the right hon. Gentleman's insincerity that he, of all people, should be reading his Civil Service gobbledegook instead of giving his usual heart-to-heart address?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that hon. Members frequently refer to their notes. That goes for the Front Bench too.

Mr. Biffen: I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that all of my best heart-to-hearts are carefully prepared by the resident Miltons in the Department.
While significant aspects of the proposals remain to be discussed—I refer to the replacing of rate support grant by revenue support grant and the rebate system—not all of the clauses left for consideration are of that magnitude, and there has already been an opportunity for more general discussion in consideration of earlier clauses.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: As I am one of those who has been privileged not to be subjected to the boredom of sitting on the Committee, and as one of those whose friends have come near to death by boredom by the irresponsible opposition of the Labour party to a measure which is greatly popular in Scotland, may I suggest that it would be a unique occasion for my right hon. Friend to be able to say to many of his friends, "Delivered from death by boredom with a guillotine?"

Mr. Biffen: Yes, and if it will facilitate the proceedings I will say just that. I thank my hon. and learned Friend for speaking for me.
The motion would provide also for the House to take the Bill through its Report and Third Reading on two allotted days. The first of these days could last until midnight, the second until 10 pm. They represent an opportunity of perhaps more than 14 hours more debate on the Bill. I do not wish to detain the House further. The Bill is recognised as a significant step in local government in Scotland and beyond, and by broadening tax base it seeks to strengthen local accountability.

Mr. Canavan: Nonsense.

Mr. Biffen: The Bill has received extensive consideration to date, and I am confident that the Committee's consideration of the rest of the bill will be no less effective than it has been so far. This measure will enable that consideration to go forward expeditiously. I hope to take the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) with me when we vote.

Mr. Peter Shore: The Leader of the House began with his recollections of times past, especially the last occasion when he chopped and guillotined a Scottish Bill. I, too, have one or two recollections which are perhaps worth sharing with the right hon. Gentleman and the House.
I begin by saying that this is the tenth guillotine of this Parliament. No fewer than five of the 10 Bills that have been guillotined have been directed against local government. That, in itself, is evidence of the Government's open hostility to local democracy and of their determination to crib, cabin and confine local

councils by limiting their expenditures and revenues, and even, as we saw two years ago in the case of the metropolitan councils, by abolishing them altogether.
This measure takes another long stride towards diminishing local democracy and increasing central Government control. I cannot find—

Mr. Barry Henderson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if local government conducted its business in the way that this Committee has conducted its business in terms of the time taken to discuss perfectly simple matters, even he might consider that we should legislate to change the way in which local government did its business?

Mr. Shore: I do not know what goes on in Scottish local councils, but I would he surprised if a matter of such importance was or would be discussed at less length in major councils in Scotland than in the House of Commons. Therefore, I do not take the lion. Gentleman's point.
I cannot find and have not heard this afternoon from the Lord Privy Seal any convincing argument for introducing the guillotine, and certainly not for introducing it at this stage. The Bill, which abolishes the domestic rating system and replaces it by a community charge, is a remarkable innovation. On 9 December 1986 on Second Reading the Secretary of State for Scotland described it as
a radical and reforming measure".
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland claimed it was
one of the most fundamental reforms of local government finance in Scotland for a generation or more.
Both those descriptions were understatements. The measure is in fact a revolution—or, rather, a counterrevolution—in local government finance.
No-one can doubt that the Bill deserves the closest scrutiny, and all the more so when we recall that its central proposal was discussed and dismissed by the Layfield committee in 1977 and again by the present Government, after two years of Green Paper consultation, in their White Paper of August 1983. What did the Goverment's White Paper say? The Government, in their White Paper after the last election, said:
There is little point in replacing rates with an untried and unfamiliar system having little support from the outset. The Government had therefore decided to make reforms to the rating system which is basically sound but needs improvement.
The Government, in the English and Welsh White Paper on similar proposals, said:
The Government recognise that rates are far from being an ideal or popular tax. But they do have advantages…they are well understood, cheap to collect and very difficult to evade. They act as an incentive to the most efficient use of property. No property tax can be directly related to the ability to pay; but rate rebates, now incorporated in housing benefit, together with supplementary benefit, have been designed to reduce hardship. The Government have concluded and announced to Parliament that rates should remain for the foreseeable future the main source of local revenue for local government.
The Government have done a complete volte face, and reversed their conclusions or only three years ago. They have done so in a complex Bill of 34 clauses, plus six dense schedules that fill no fewer than 26 pages of text.
No-one can argue—and the Leader of the House did not—that the Bill has been blocked by delaying tactics.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: It has been argued.

Mr. Shore: No, no-one has argued that point.

Mr. Forsyth: The right hon. Gentleman may not have had an opportunity to read the proceedings in Committee held last night in which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) admitted that the purpose of the Opposition in Committee had been to wreck the Bill. That has nothing to do with careful scrutiny or deciding issues. It was clear from the start that the Opposition had no constructive role to play. Surely, in the interests of scrutiny, we should accept this guillotine measure?

Mr. Shore: I cannot for a moment accept that that argument can be sustained when we recall the progress that was made in discussing and deciding some of the most important clauses in the Bill. Seventeen clauses have been dealt with in 17 sittings. Those clauses included provisions for phasing out and abolishing domestic rates, the future of non-domestic rates and the new system of community charges. Those are the three major features of the Bill. The fact that the Committee got through those three major aspects gives the lie straight away to the assertion that the Opposition determined to wreck the Bill and to stop it in its tracks after the first votes had taken place.
What is still to be covered is the complex administration of the community charge system; the replacement of rate support grant by revenue support grant; the important question of rebates; and the new system of charging for water and sewage services.
Those issues should not be squeezed into the rigid framework of a timetable motion. The idea that these matters, 17 clauses and the greater part of the schedules, can be dealt with in six sittings is ludicrous. One would have thought that the danger of ill-considered legislation, pushed through with inadequate thought and large Parliamentary majorities. would be particularly fresh in the Government's mind after the recent Local Government Finance Bill. That was the subject of another timetable motion only a fortnight ago. It was rushed through to make lawful six years of unlawful rate support grant legislation. That legislation was in itself the consequence of incompetent drafting and insufficient Parliamentary scrutiny. However, unlike this Bill, the Local Government Finance Bill had at least the excuse that it had to get through quickly to meet the rate support grant payment timetable before 1 April.
Even this insensitive Government must be aware that they have only a small minority of seats in Scotland. Their new measures are opposed, as the Second Reading debate made crystal clear, by the Labour party, the SNP, the Liberals and the Social Democrats in Scotland. There is no parliamentary majority for this measure in Scotland and I doubt whether there is any popular electoral support for it either. The Government's motive for haste is clearly political and electoral. They believe that a measure that abolishes domestic rates in Scotland will he popular there, provided only that people do not have time to digest the far more unacceptable alternative, the community charge, which is to take its place.
The Government have sought deliberately to discredit the present rating system by making massive cuts in the rate support grant, thus forcing local councils to make up for some part of the lost Government grant by rate increases. Those increases have, inevitably, been high. The facts are indisputable. Rate support grant accounted for 68·5 per cent. of relevant expenditure in the last year of the

Labour Government. The present level, in the most recent year, is 56 per cent. The average domestic rate in Scotland was £132 in 1978–79. Last year the average was £392.
The same has happened in England and Wales, but unlike England and Wales, where revaluation of property values was irresponsibly cancelled in 1979, Scotland has gone ahead with rate revaluations and these have brought many shocks to Scottish ratepayers and near-panic to the Scottish Tory party.
It is clear why the Government wish to substitute a community charge, or poll tax, for domestic rating. First, it is regressive. As the Secretary of State gleefully pointed out in his speech on Second Reading,
personal community charge is to be payable by everyone aged 18 or over with their sole or main residence in each local authority area. There will be only very limited exemptions—those who are still receiving child benefit, and those who are resident in prisons or hospitals.
Thus, apart from the rebate, virtually every adult over the age of 18 will be charged the same amount, irrespective of his or her income. A wealthy couple living in a large house will pay exactly the same amount as a low-paid worker and his wife living in a modest terraced house or council flat. Even the very poorest, who are wholly exempt from rates today, will have to pay a minimum 20 per cent. of the community charge. Regressive taxation is a classic Tory fiscal policy.
The second attraction of the new system to the Government is that it will further limit the power of local councils by removing from their control the imposition of local taxation on industrial and commercial properties. It is the Government. not the local authorities, who will decide henceforth the level of non-domestic rates, which will be limited to increases in the cost of living index. Non-domestic rates account for more than half of locally raised revenues today. Can any hon. Member seriously argue that this is not a great diminution of the powers that presently exist, as they have long existed, in the hands of local councils and local democracy?
The third attraction for the Government, and closely linked to the second, is that the new system is bound to discourage and limit public expenditure by local councils. Since non-domestic rates will be controlled by the Government, henceforth increases in local authority expenditure will fall wholly upon the community charge. The higher local authority expenditure, the higher the poll tax will be, regardless of whether there is a need for high and increasing expenditure in the areas concerned.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State sought to justify this by saying:
This is the means by which the new system will provide its essential element of accountability, since the personal community charge is to be payable by everyone aged 18 or over…it is intended that the charge should be for practical purposes a universal obligation on the adult population"—[Official Report, 9 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 200–69.]
"No taxation without representation," was the cry of the American revolution in 1776. The Government are now arguing for a new doctrine, "No representation without taxation." It is wrong at this stage to abort consideration of this novel, ill-considered, regressive, punitive and anti-democratic Bill. I urge the House to reject the timetable motion.

Mr. Allan Stewart (Eastwood): The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, understandably, that he did not know much about what


happened in Scottish local councils, and it is obvious that he knows nothing about what happened in the Committee. His speech was a grave discourtesy to those who serve on the Committee, as he has patently not read a word of its proceedings. We have sat for 101 hours or so considering the Bill.
The Opposition have not had a particularly good press.The Scotsman said today that the highlight of the proceedings was the arrival of the tea lady. That depends on one's view—I should have thought that the highlight of the proceedings was the arrival of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) who was in rumbustious form, just as he was before he left the Chamber today.

Mr. Henderson: Does it not say something about the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and his hon. Friends that the hon. Gentleman uses undemocratic means to advance his cause but when he has the opportunity to talk about the timetable on the Bill he fails to do so, preferring to raise another bogus point of order rather than argue his case in an honourable and democratic way?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right. I am glad to say that none of us is responsible for the actions or the speeches of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West.
This allocation of time motion may go down in history as the Glasgow Herald guillotine. We were making not unreasonable progress until an editorial in the Glasgow Herald criticised the effectiveness of the Opposition Front Bench. Thereafter, progress slowed down remarkably. The effectiveness of the Opposition Front Bench has been criticised also by the Daily Record, which is the Scottish Socialist equivalent of Pravda saying that Mr. Gorbachev should pull his socks up.
Throughout the Committee, my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have listened courteously to the points made by the Opposition. My hon. Friend the Minister made two concessions when he accepted two Opposition amendments. The House will be agog to know more about the intellectual force and vigour, combined with rigorous research, which lay behind the concessions forced out of my hon. Friend. The first was an amendment defined by the Opposition as a probing amendment. The second they put forward with the argument that they did not understand what it was and asked my hon. Friend to explain it. That has been the standard of the Opposition argument in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) has argued that the Opposition deliberately tried to delay the Bill. I am not sure that I accept that. I think rather that the Opposition have wasted a great deal of time through their confused arguments. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) made that point effectively in an early intervention. The Opposition are confused in their analysis of the present system. The analysis of the rating system put forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was as follows:
Rates are about as fair a form of taxation as one can have. Income tax is unfair and VAT is much more unfair than rates".
He repeated that point so that his hon. Friends could understand it, saying about rates:
They are fair, or as fair as any other form of taxation.
That was before lunch. After lunch, that analysis was clarified, if that is the correct term, by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). He said

The burden for paying for local services has been shifted from the progressive taxes levied by the Treasury onto relatively regressive taxes such as the rating system."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 13 January 1987; c. 133–52.]
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney is no doubt very interested in this clarification of the Labour party's analysis of various forms of taxation. The view of the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen on Scottish affairs is that income tax is progressive, according to the hon. Member for East Lothian, but unfair. according to the hon. Member for Cathcart, whereas rates are "relatively regressive" according to the hon. Member for East Lothian but
about as fair a form of taxation as one can have",
according to the hon. Member for Cathcart.

Mr. Henderson: That is .just the Front Bench.

Mr. Stewart: No doubt we can look forward to the promotion of the hon. Members for East Lothian and for Cathcart to the shadow Treasury team in the near future. That confusion accounted for a great deal of the time wasted in Committee.
Let us consider the confusion on policy. The policy was spelt out early on in the Committee by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), who we all wish a speedy recovery and a safe return to the House. The hon. Gentleman said:
Our party, from its grass roots, has decided through all its consultations that the road to take is that of local income tax."—-[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 18 December 1986; c. 80.]
That may have been the policy at the grass roots, but it was not the policy elsewhere. I am not quite sure what the opposite of grass roots is—it may be tree tops. or even coconuts. At any rate, the policy at the grass roots had not been passed on to the coconuts on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Cathcart, in one of his best speeches in Committee—it was actually quite a good speech—effectively attacked the whole concept of local income tax. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) initiated that debate.
Throughout the Committee stage, the hon. Member for East Lothian kept saying that he did not like rates, while the hon. Member for Cathcart continued to raise arguments in favour of them. That is why we wasted so much time.
Time was also wasted by the consistent failure of Opposition Members to put forward their policy. Neither the hon. Member for Cathcart nor the hon. Member for East Lothian presented any policy, but eventually all was revealed. Into the intellectual void created by those two hon. Members stepped, without hesitation and with a firm stride, the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams), saying:
If the Minister asks again for the Labour party policy on rates I think that we should give him it.
That comment brought thunderous applause from the Conservative Benches. He continued:
We should phone Walworth road and get the Labour party's policy on rating since 1905 and read it to him word for word, line by line, paragraph by paragraph. He would find it illuminating.
My hon. Friend the Minister replied:
That is the first constructive suggestion that we have had from the Opposition Benches. I should like to take up the hon. Gentleman's invitation".
The hon. Member for Paisley, North paused and then said:


I am glad of the invitation.
There was a longer pause before he continued, with reference to the document:
It is somewhat lengthy".
At that point there was the following intervention from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart:
And applies only to England and Wales."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 13 January 1987; c. 162–3.]
All is revealed. A genuine seeker after truth who wishes to establish the Labour party in Scotland's alternative policy to the Abolition of Domestic Rates, Etc. (Scotland) Bill must go to Walworth road—not an obviously convenient location for the average Scottish seeker after truth, but never mind—and dig out a major tome entitled "Labour Party Policy on Rates in England and Wales since 1905". Continuing nonsense of that kind wasted much of the Committee's time.
I do not wish to suggest for a moment that constructive points were not put forward by the Oppposition. Generally, those points were put forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown). Indeed, it was noticeable that the atmosphere of genial relaxation that surrounded my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench changed when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan rose and the advisers leaned forward and grasped their pencils because the hon. Gentleman put forward genuine points.
Some productive matters were revealed in Committee—notably, in regard to my constituency, a very helpful statement by the Opposition that the residents of Eastwood were the first and major beneficiaries of the community charge. The hon. Member for Cathcart referred to them as the largest group of beneficiaries in Scotland, although it must have been a close-run thing between my constituents and those represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) and for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson). It was also helpful that the Labour party repeated its policy that Eastwood district should be abolished and that the good people of Eastwood should become part of Glasgow. It was also helpful that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland put forward the case for a local income tax at great length, but with little detail, admitting by implication that a local income tax under any rational system must mean the abolition of very small district councils such as Eastwood. Those were some of the plus points in Committee.
I thought that the Opposition tactics on the Bill were somewhat dubious. I thought that they would make sufficient progress in Committee to avoid a guillotine and then go for all-night sessions on the Floor of the House when, of course, the Committee members could he supplemented by the battle-hardened battalions from Govan, Garscadden, Monklands and elsewhere.

Mr. Fairbairn: My hon. Friend has used the word guillotine in reference to this instrument of execution. As this is a Scottish Bill, should we not use the proper terminology and call it a "maiden"? The Scottish equivalent of the guillotine was the maiden, so we should be maidening the Bill.

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that comment. Perhaps I should use the official term and refer to an allocation of time motion.
I conclude that the Labour party tactics are probably correct because the Opposition dare not expose their arguments or their lack of policy to extended debate on the Floor of the House. I believe that the guillotine is perfectly reasonable. It allows the Committee and the House to consider the outstanding matters with a reasonable timetable. It will protect the Labour party from extended debate on the Floor of the House on its total lack of policy on a subject of importance to the Scottish people. My right hon. Friend has put forward a reasonable timetable for the Bill and I urge the House to accept it.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: On these occasions when we debate motions to allocate time, there is an element of ritual. That has the effect of driving the press from the Gallery because they seem to have heard these arguments before. However, I do not believe that the House should regard these matters lightly.
The Leader of the House admitted that this Bill is of considerable importance. It is of considerable constitutional importance, in that it substantially alters the balance of power between central and local government. It curtails the effective use of financial powers hitherto enjoyed by local government to provide the services which Parliament has prescribed that local government shall operate. The Bill sweeps away the principal local source of revenue for local government which has operated in Scotland for more than 200 years. It does so by a reversal of policy as dramatic and unexpected as anything that has occurred in the lifetime of this Government—a Government not prone to making U-turns.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) drew attention in his remarkably perceptive speech to the regressive horrors of the Bill. The concept of a tax being levied upon every citizen in Scotland regardless of ability to pay is, not surprisingly, regarded with horror throughout Scotland. An independent opinion poll conducted during the passage of the Bill showed that 86 per cent. of the Scottish people believed that local taxation should be related to ability to pay. If ever a thumbs-down was given to a measure to which the Government appear to attach importance in terms of winning votes at the coming election, this is it.

Mr. Henderson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for public service broadcasting, we pay a television licence fee or tax which is unrelated to ability to pay and which, for many people, will be lower—or higher—than they would be required to pay as a community charge for the range of local government services? Has not the hon. Gentleman got this out of perspective?

Mr. Maclennan: The financing of television has very little to do with this Bill on local government. The hon. Gentleman had better sort out whether it is higher or lower before he makes another such intervention.
As the Bill is of major constitutional importance, its Committee stage could have been taken on the Floor of the House, as has been the practice with earlier constitutional Bills. We could also have argued that it should have been considered first by an all-party pre-legislative Committee that would have taken evidence from those who would be affected by it and those who would have to administer the new system of local taxation. It would have been an ideal candidate for such a


procedure. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and I proposed that to the Lord Privy Seal, who refused even to meet us to discuss the issue. That demonstrates his scant regard for the opinion of people in Scotland, as expressed by those who represent them in Parliament. He has been cavalier from the beginning in his handling of the Bill, as is illustrated by its extraordinary timetabling since it was published.
The Bill was given a First Reading on 27 November and a Second Reading only a week later. That was all the time allowed to local authorities and people throughout Scotland to form their views on the Bill and their recommendations about what could be done to improve it.

Mr. Michael Hirst: I was interested by the hon. Gentleman's commitment to the constitutional aspects of the Bill and especially by his suggestion that it should have been exposed to a pre-legislative Committee so that its details might have been considered further. Can he assure the House that if the alliance was in a future Government, it would ensure that all legislation was considered by a pre-legislative Committee?

Mr. Maclennan: The alliance parties have always believed that major constitutional reform should proceed on the basis of agreement and consensus so far as possible. We not only preach that, we shall practise it.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman saying yes or no to my hon. Friend's question?

Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Gentleman simply behaves like a parrot, he will do better to keep his seat. The answer to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) is that measures to reform the constitution must enjoy the support of a majority of hon. Members and it is highly desirable that that support should be drawn from both sides of the House. That is a well recognised convention of Parliament.
The Bill is designed to limit the power of local government to spend money, and although the Minister dressed it up as providing for greater local accountability, the reality is that, by the Government's admission, local authorities will have the power to determine what services should be offered in respect of only 13 per cent, of the moneys which they will raise by a poll tax. The Bill has always been controversial and has aroused widespread hostility.
I had started to discuss the manner in which the Government have handled the Bill. Its Second Reading was on 9 December and it was committed to Standing Committee a week later. That was another period during which people could make suggestions about how the Bill could be improved. As the Lord Privy Seal admits, at the first sitting, the Government moved an almost unprecedented sittings motion to ensure that the Committee would sit four times a week and for long hours to consider the Bill in detail. That put pressure not only on Members of Parliament but on all those outside the House who will be affected by the measure and who wish to make representations on it. They include the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Consumer Council, the National Union of Ratepayers Associations and many others. In taking longer than usual to consider

the early clauses, Labour Members of the Committee were simply trying to provide time to those who wished to prepare their formal submissions and amendments to try to improve the Bill.
We must also consider what happened in Committee. The Lord Privy Seal had the good grace to admit that reasonable progress has been made and that we have proceeded, broadly speaking, at the rate of one clause for each sitting. But the clauses are extremely important. The first clause provided for the complete abolition of domestic rates, and we also considered the way in which non-domestic rates would be determined, the limited powers of local authorities following the introduction of provisions whereby the Secretary of State will control these matters, the highly contested question of how the community charge will be applied to students at university, how a standard community charge will be levied and who will be liable to pay it, and the calculation of the collective community charge and those who will be liable to pay it. It seems quite unreasonable to expect that these matters could have been dealt with any more quickly than by one clause per sitting.
That, however, is not the only point of importance in considering the progress made on the Bill. The Bill itself is in large measure an enabling Bill. It leaves undefined many matters which are of great importance in the administration of the new tax system. It provides, if my accounting is correct, no fewer than 47 times, that matters will be prescribed, following the passage of the Bill through the House. Within the body of the Bill, and in the schedules still to come there are 31 references to circumstances being prescribed. If a Committee is to serve any useful purpose in elucidating the Government's intention, it must above all have in mind the need to determine what the Secretary of State intends should be prescribed, what the circumstances are to be; and when there is so much hidden from the public view as there is in this Bill it is right to seek to tease it out.
In so far as the Committee took time over these matters, it was because the Ministers were so forthcoming about the contents of subordinate legislation which will flow from this Bill, almost of all of which will be enacted by negative procedure and with no subsequent debate in this House. There are a number of other references to the discretion of the Secretary of State. There are eight references to his exercising powers "as may be determined", two to "as he considers appropriate" and two to "as he thinks fit". All these are occasions when the Secretary of State has wide powers of discretion in the practical operation of the Bill. The Committee would not have been doing its job properly if it had not attempted to ascertain the Minister's intentions in these respects.
The burden of the Government's case has been that the House must take it on trust that the Secretary of State will operate the Bill according to his best judgment of what is administratively convenient. In almost all cases, when he was asked to say what would be the content of the subordinate legislation, that was the gist of the reply, that it would be a matter for the convenience of those who had to operate the Bill. This was the case even when there were certain issues touching on the liberty of the subject and touching on confidentiality of information—empowering, for example, the registration officer to nominate persons to give information to him concerning the compilation of the register which would involve the most serious invasions of confidential administration, requiring


local authorities to surrender to him information given them for completely different purposes. It is right that the Committee should have lingered on points such as that and should have sought to persuade the Minister that such broad and arbitrary power should be curtailed by the inclusion of at least some criteria in the Bill itself.
One is bound to ask why the Government are in such a hurry. There has been no mention of this so far in the debate. The Lord Privy Seal vouchsafed that we would continue to make good progress under the proposed timetable. Let me make it plain that I have never objected to the introduction of timetables, provided that it was done by agreement across the Floor of the House and with the consent of all parties. It can lead to orderly discussion. But the time for such a discussion is not when the Bill is in train, but before it has been taken into Committee. Why does the Lord Privy Seal feel it so necessary to complete the Committee stage by 19 February? If we were to continue to proceed at the rate at which we have been proceeding, there is not much doubt that the Bill would have been through not just Committee but all its stages in this House by Easter and through all its stages in another place by early summer.
One is bound to conclude that there is some reason external to the Bill which is driving the Government along this course. The reason is not far to seek. It is fairly clear that the Government have in mind that the Bill should be enacted sufficiently early to enable them to call a general election with the Bill on the statute book at any time after the Chancellor has introduced his Budget and the Prime Minister has returned from Moscow, having talked to Secretary Gorbachev: she wishes to have this little measure in her pocket.
Far be it from me to counsel the Government on what will or will not help them to win an election in Scotland. All I can say is that they are more foolish than I believe them to be if they think that this measure will win them a single vote in Scotland. The reality is that the Bill is seen for what it is, a regressive Bill which imposes a tax on those who can ill afford to pay it. It seems to be a Bill that is taking from local government powers to spend on services which it has enjoyed in the past. The Bill is seen as an arrogation of power to the centre which is, of course, quite typical of this Government. The Government are being cavalier about the possibility that they have got anything in the Bill wrong, despite the fact that, in an earlier case to which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney referred, they had to bring forward amending legislation to legalise an earlier local government finance Bill which had resulted in six years of illegality due very largely to the same kind of approach to legislation which we see here.
I am not one to complain about attempts to bring about orderly debate, but I am opposed to precipitate debate, particularly in matters of this kind, which have been highly divisive, complex and inequitable in their effect. I hope that the House will resist the motion, because it is quite unnecessary to get the Bill on to the statute book by the end of this parliamentary session. There is no good case for the motion, and I hope that the House will resist it.

Sir Hector Monro: I am afraid that I have not had the privilege of being a member of the Standing

Committee, so I have missed the tremendous arguments that have gone on through the night for over a hundred hours. Having listened to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) I am not surprised that they have gone on for so long. It is perhaps a happy coincidence that on the Order Paper are the amendments to Standing Orders relative to short speeches in both the House and the Scottish Grand Committee, and perhaps the hon. Member will take that to heart.
I am disappointed that the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) have just left the Chamber. Some of us have strongly argued the case put forward by the Select Committee on Procedure for timetabling debate in Standing Committees. Had our motion to do that been accepted last year, there is no doubt that the 34 clauses of this Bill could have been covered easily in a hundred hours, had the Bill been timetabled with the agreement of both the Front Benches, allowing for adequate discussion of each clause.
That surely is such a simple supposition that it is disappointing that the Front Benches of the Conservative and Labour parties are so resolutely against the timetabling of Committee stages. That would be logical, because Members would have far more opportunity to discuss each clause, with a reasonable time scale for each sitting. I hope that, the more of these guillotine motions we have, the more likely it will be that we shall get to timetabling Standing Committees.
Anyone who has been in Parliament for even a short time accepts that when the Opposition set out to show their virility by achieving a guillotine, it is not too difficult for them to do so, but it is done at the expense of a detailed discussion of each clause and schedule. In turn, that puts a greater onus on Members of another place who feel that they have a duty to do what we have been unable to accomplish in this Chamber or in Standing Committee.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my hon. Friend agree that in this case we have managed within the 100 hours to deal with all the major points of principle in the Bill?

Sir Hector Monro: I am not so sure that we have. I have read most, but not all, of the proceedings. In the latter part of the Bill there are important issues such as the register, rebates and water and sewerage charges. No doubt many new clauses will be put down for discussion. Because the Opposition have been so dilatory on the early part of the Bill, these important issues will not be discussed even though 100 hours have been spent in Committee so far.

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is preaching sweet reasonableness about the way the proceedings should be conducted. What does he think about the Government publishing an extremely controversial Bill one week, arranging Second Reading debate for the following week and expecting the standing committee to sit both morning and afternoon only one week later? Did that allow reasonable time for consideration by hon. Members or by people outside the House?

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman was well aware of what was coming in the Bill. He had the whole of the Christmas recess to consult anyone he wanted. There was adequate time to prepare the vicious attack that he wished to launch. We were led to believe that there was to be a devastating attack on the Conservative party today. What


do we find? There are eight Labour Members on the Back Benches. There is not one Scottish nationalist here. There is now one Liberal Member here after the debate has been going on for a long time; he is an English Member who has managed to get back from Greenwich, no doubt by boat. It is astonishing that not one Scottish Liberal and only one member of the SDP has been here for what was to be a great attack on the timetable motion and the way that the Government have handled the Bill in Standing Committee.
Members of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have come down in cohorts at great expense to the ratepayers to show their opposition. Here they find only eight supporters on the Labour Benches. That does not show much strength of opposition from Labour Members of Parliament against the motion or against the Bill.
The Opposition have not considered constructively the positive advantages of the Bill, such as community charges, which will be fairer to single people and widows. The Government are giving Members the opportunity to change a system that is outmoded. If we were starting from scratch today, who would have thought of taxing the valuation of houses as the best way of financing local government?

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The Labour party.

Sir Hector Monro: Yes, indeed, the Labour party wants to keep that system. The alliance wants a system of local income tax, which is the most hopeless proposition that has been made throughout the debate.

Mr. John Corrie: Even worse than that, is it not a fact that the Opposition intend to rate agricultural buildings, which would mean a severe curtailment of the income of farmers?

Sir Hector Monro: Yes, indeed. I was trying to keep in relatively low key.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also keep to the motion that is before the House.

Sir Hector Monro: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you feel that I have kept to the issue of why we should have adopted the proposal of the Select Committee on Procedure to timetable Standing Committees.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was merely seeking to prevent the debate from turning into a discussion about agricultural or any other rating.

Sir Hector Monro: I appreciate what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is of crucial interest to everyone in Scotland that the Labour party intends to rate agricultural land. That is important relative to a Bill dealing with rating in Scotland. However, I shall say no more because the point has been made. [Interruption.] Indeed, I am coming to that point. I did not want to spoil a reference to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) who has made many constructive comments in Committee. I look forward to his contribution. If I were looking for supporters on timetabling Committee stages I am sure that he would be the first to join me.
The sad thing about the Bill is the incredible opposition of local authorities in Scotland. They have never shown so little wish to change as at present. They are reluctant to consider any proposition that would mean a change in

their administration procedures. When the register and community charges are enforced, with all the modern technology that an office can use these days, the operation of the system will be not only much fairer, but simpler.

Mr. John Maxton: Who wrote the Bill?

Sir Hector Monro: One gets bored by the childish interventions of the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] About 99 hours of the 100 hours spent in Committee have been taken up by interventions by the hon. Gentleman.
I hope that the House will support strongly the motion to restrict further discussion in Standing Committee so that we can get on with the Bill, get it to another place and get it on the statute book as soon as possible.

Mr. Bob McTaggart: I became a member of the Standing Committee only after the Christmas recess because of the unfortunate illness of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey). I am pleased to report to the House that my hon. Friend is making a good, sound recovery. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I only wish that the same could be said for me, because of my involvement in Standing Committee.
There is a total of seven Opposition Members in Standing Committee. For much of the proceedings, we have not had our total complement. Yet we are now considering a motion to introduce a guillotine on the proceedings of the Committee, although it could not be argued that hon. Members have had sufficient time to examine the Bill paragraph by paragraph and clause by clause.
This is a very important Bill. The clauses relating to collective community charges show that the Bill has been put together hurriedly, without consideration for the almost impossible burden that it will place on Scottish local authorities, quite apart from the individual ratepayer. The ambiguity of many of the references shows that the Government have not gone over the finer points of the Bill, and have not considered any exemptions for any sector of the public and intend to leave the already hard-pressed local authorities to pick up the pieces and clear up the mess.
Representations have been made to the Minister by groups such as Shelter and the Council for Single Homeless and by other bodies concerned with the plight of the mentally handicapped and people receiving severe disablement benefits. The Minister has chosen to ignore all those representations. In my constituency there are many hostels for the homeless and the mentally handicapped and it is grossly unfair to expect those people, with all the other burdens that they have to carry, to be faced with a collective community charge.
There are many multi-occupancy properties in my constituency and one landlord often controls several properties. Does the Minister believe that such landlords—at best people who are very busy and at worst Rachmans who are unscrapulous—will keep daily records of the tenants and apportion the collective community charge? I am sure that in such cases many landlords will deduct a flat sum from tenants who already have very little, and that the local authority, if it is lucky, will receive some of that money.
The number of people living in hostels for the homeless and in hostels for battered wives and so on, is increasing all the time, and the problems that those people will face will be quite insurmountable. It will prove difficult for them to obtain the rebates to which they are justly entitled. I have a large number of unemployed people and people on supplementary benefit in my constituency, and they will bear an unfair portion of this new tax. Two wards in my constituency will be expected to pay an extra 42 per cent. and an extra 35 per cent. How can the Minister deny that that is anything other than a tax on the poor and a pre-election sop to the middle-class home owner?
The Government have already had plenty of time to consider the average Tory voter and they realise that most middle-class high-earning families in which only one member of the family is working and earning a high salary will pay less of the new tax. That will be a popular vote catcher and the Government hope that it will be in time for the general election. It exposes a total lack of care or consideration by the Government for the plight of the large and growing army of disadvantaged people. A family of four, all of whom are working but in low-paid jobs, will often earn, collectively, less than one middle-class manager. Yet that family will have to pay four times more in community charges. That is a blatantly unfair distribution of resources. A family of four hard-working people is not more likely to use the services of a local authority than the executive family with a leisurely life style.
The Bill will widen even further the gap between the rich and the poor in our society. The poor will be penalised simply because there are more of them per household. Figures published by Glasgow district council show that the areas of very high unemployment and poor amenities are the areas that will bear the brunt of this new tax. Only eight wards, mostly residential areas with low levels of unemployment, will gain under this new system by paying less tax. That is out of a total of 66 wards in Glasgow.
What level of collection do the Government expect to see? We have heard estimates of 80 per cent., but under the present system 90 per cent, of rates are collected. However, 80 per cent, is a gross over-estimate of what local authorities can expect to receive. Evasion of the tax will be massive. Families will split up and youngsters will move out of the family home in order to avoid placing an even bigger onus on their parents to pay this tax. The only people guaranteed exemption from the tax are long-term hospital patients and prisoners. Perhaps we should all take a stand and refuse to pay the poll tax. If we did so and refused to pay the fines, we would swell the already overcrowded prisons to bursting point—if they have not already reached that point. At least the Government would be forced to have a look at the problems in the prisons if at nothing else.
Judging by the clauses about the collective community charge, it is quite clear that the Bill has been hurriedly put together without consideration of the almost impossible burden which our local authorities will face. The amount of money that they will have to spend will prove to be completely under-estimated by the Government. When a Labour Government are returned at the next general election, perhaps all of us can reflect on this Bill and say that it was only a bad dream.

Mr. Michael Hirst: I have not been impressed so far tonight by what I discern as synthetic indignation by the Opposition about the motion. The history of the use of the guillotine is worth considering in order to judge the assertions made by the Opposition that the Government are moving with haste to get this legislation through. The record for the number of Bills guillotined in any one session is held by the last Labour Government. They moved to impose a guillotine after far fewer sittings than this legislation. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and some of his Front Bench colleagues ought to have had regard to that.
I am sympathetic to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) about the general principle of timetabling legislation. To anybody who used to earn a living on the basis of time spent in a job, it must come as a shock to come to this House and sit in a Standing Committee where it is possible to wait hour after hour for some minor amendment, often described as a probing amendment, when the purpose is simply to waste time and clock up hours of opposition. For that reason I have considerable sympathy for the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries that one benefit of a timetable motion is that it concentrates the minds of all participants on the remaining clauses and schedules and obviates the time wasting that characterised the earlier part of this Standing Committee.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Member is familiar with the Bill and knows that is says 75 times "as may be prescribed". It is right that the Opposition should put down probing amendments to try to find out from Ministers exactly what they intend to do under that phrase.

Mr. Hirst: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. It is a pity that his memory seems to be so thin and that he has not consulted the Official Report. That shows that many of the interventions and speeches in Standing Committee were no more than a lot of time wasting. He makes the point that the Opposition tabled probing amendments, but the Official Report will help him look differently at the quality of some of the contributions. I can recall many occasions on which my hon. Friends on the Committee evinced their boredom about the irrelevance of the contributions made by some Opposition Members.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that a probing amendment is meant to be tabled in order to find out the meaning and purpose of a Bill? Its purpose is not, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, to find out its own meaning.

Mr. Hirst: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. The position is, perhaps, slightly worse than he described, because one Opposition probing amendment was accepted by the Government. I think that reveals the thinking of many Opposition Members.

Mr. Maxton: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that one of our lengthy debates, in which he played a prominent part, dealt with an amendment that he tabled on help for sports clubs? He will remember that, following that lengthy debate, he tried to withdraw the amendment—which, in a sense, made the debate a total waste of time.

Mr. Hirst: We have certainly set the scene for a jolly good discussion on this point. I intend to return to it later, to put firmly on the record the reasons why my hon. Friends followed that approach and why the actions of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) were so injurious to the proper interests of sporting clubs.
In their own words, the Opposition started out to wreck the Bill. The hon. Member for Cathcart admitted that, and in the early stages of our debates the conduct of Opposition Members confirmed it. I need not remind the House about the events on Thursday 18 December. During my relatively short time in the House, I had not before witnessed conduct such as that of one Opposition Member who insinuated himself into the Committee. It was appalling. It must be unprecedented for a Committee to be suspended three times because of such irresponsibility. If the hon. Member for Cathcart is as fair-minded as I believe him to be, he will agree that the whole purpose of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) was to wreck the Bill by extra-parliamentary practices, as he had threatened to do.
We do not need a timetable to extract an admission from the Opposition that they are basically clinging to a discredited system. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey)—his absence is a matter of great sadness, and we look forward to his return—said revealingly during the third Committee sitting that the Labour party had no definite policy on which way to go, but admitted that the system was discredited. Bearing that in mind, we might have expected Opposition Members to make some kind of revelation about the way that they proposed to fund local government expenditure.

Mr. Home Robertson: We did.

Mr. Hirst: I know that I did not attend all the sittings, but I listened during those that I did attend and there was certainly a great void in the official policy of the Opposition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) referred to the confusions and contradictions in the admissions of the Labour Front Bench spokesman. I watched with some interest the way in which the brow of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) furrowed deeper and deeper as he learned of those contradictions so eloquently described by my hon. Friend.
However, there are some things that Opposition Members did not or would not say. Notwithstanding whether the timetable motion is agreed to, I hope that there will be sufficient time in Committee and on the Floor of the House for Opposition Members to answer some of the questions put to them in Committee, which they were singularly unprepared to answer. They shrugged off the fact that only 29 per cent, of people in Scotland pay full rates—

Mr. Maxton: Seventy-nine per cent.

Mr. Hirst: No, only 29 per cent, of people in Scotland pay full rates. After all the hours of debate in Committee and following the exhaustive examination that the hon. Gentleman asserted he had made of the Green Paper, if he is not now aware of that statistic, I despair.
The Opposition shrugged off the fact that 750,000 people in Scotland who have an income make no contribution to local government expenditure.

Mr. Home Robertson: Rubbish.

Mr. Hirst: The hon. Gentleman should consult the information available, which has been prepared over a long period. It is interesting that he chooses to take this opportunity to challenge something that he did not choose to challenge in Committee. I hope that he will consult the Official Report and the available information to clarify his mind. I recall fairly making that point in Committee.
The Opposition shrugged off the fact that businesses in Scotland have no protection. Although under the statute they have the right to be consulted, in Strathclyde a rate was imposed before the business community was consulted. Even when they are consulted, they have little opportunity to influence the spending policies of local government—they are simply obliged to pay.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) said in Committee that it was his belief that this legislation would enhance local accountability, Opposition Members disputed it. If a local authority finds that the community charge that it is obliged to levy upon its inhabitants rises because of a deliberate decision to carry out the democratic will of the local electorate to increase services, I believe that that will improve local accountability.
I suspect that the colleagues of Labour Members serving in local government in Scotland are rather concerned that this measure will promote much greater interest among the public during local government elections. I believe that the political friends of the Labour party serving in Scottish local authorities will take due and proper note of that.
A more significant matter, and one which I do not believe a timetable motion will necessarily resolve, is the reluctance of the alliance representative to spell out how its system of local income tax would operate. On Second Reading and in Committee I asked how the system would operate. I see you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, nodding.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, the hon. Gentleman saw me shaking my head, and that is rather different.

Mr. Hirst: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you were shaking your head. I do not think for a moment that you share my despair at having failed to learn how the alliance proposes to introduce local income tax.
It is fair to say that this afternoon the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) repeated his assertion that local income tax would be levied on ability to pay, and that therefore it would be a fairer system. It is difficult for me to accept that, as he has studiously declined to say how his party, if it were ever in government, would introduce such a system. We are left with his contention that the system would be fair, without knowing exactly how it would operate. Without challenge, he said that it was not his duty—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman heard me earlier reproach one hon. Member for seeking to introduce matters that were not the subject of the Bill. It is fair for hon. Members to argue about the content of the Bill, but not to argue about matters not covered by the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to the motion before the House.

Mr. Hirst: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker for making that point, of which I was aware. It is, however, fair to say that during the debates on clause I stand part and a series of amendments—

Mr. Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am conscious of the point that you just made to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst). He referred to my remarks this afternoon about local income tax. As you will recall, I made no such remarks this afternoon because, in my view, they would have been out of order.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is correct to say that in Committee the hon. Gentleman tabled a number of amendments requiring the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to consider local income tax. We frequently discussed the merits of that alternative system.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has underlined the difficulty facing the Chair. He has illustrated the dangers of allowing the debate to get away from the terms of the motion. I repeat that it is perfectly fair to argue about matters that are covered by the Bill as reasons why the motion should be accepted, or otherwise, but not to refer to matters that are not covered by the Bill.

Mr. Hirst: If I have inadvertently forgotten what was previously discussed this afternoon, I apologise to the House. However, it was my recollection that local income tax was mentioned.
In essence, the purpose of the legislation is to look at ways of financing of Scottish local government more fairly. I know that the different Opposition parties have different suggestions about that. The point that I should like to make now is relevant to the timetable motion and in the light of the discussions in Committee.
Those hon. Members who have argued against the Government's proposals have overlooked one vital fact: however local government is financed—whether by rates, sales tax, community charge or local income tax—the sum and substance of the matter is that the lion's share of local government expenditure is, and will continue to be, financed by the Exchequer, to which all taxpayers will contribute in accordance with their ability to pay. That is the vital point, which was so often overlooked in the amendments tabled by alliance and Opposition Members in Committee.
I have a special interest in this legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood said that his constituents were reckoned to do best out of the legislation. I have the invidious distinction that my constituents pay the highest average rates of any local authority in Scotland, and probably in the rest of Britain, with the exception of certain London boroughs. Many of my constituents are elderly people who live relatively modestly and for whom this legislation will be extremely important in helping them to continue living in the houses that they have occupied for so many years. It is sad when elderly widows and widowers are driven from their homes because they can no longer afford the burden of maintaining them because of their high rates bills. It is not unusual for people who live in relatively modest houses to pay £1,100 or £1,200 a year in rates. Clearly, that puts an exceptional burden on them.

Mr. Allan Stewart: My hon. Friend is making an important point, which not only relates to his constituency, but is of general application. Is it not an absolute disgrace that no member of the alliance parties is in the Chamber to hear him?

Mr. Hirst: All the alliance representatives are absent. Given the number of Scottish seats that they represent, I should have thought that some of them would have been here this afternoon. Obviously, they will have to answer for themselves and explain their absence.
Speaking on behalf of those whom I have tried, in a kindly way, to describe as little old widows, when I intervened in Committee about their plight, I was surprised at the way in which their interests were dismissed by some hon. Members on the Committee. It is curious that my constituency enjoys the lowest proportion of pensioner households, and that of the hon. Member for Cathcart has one of the highest—over 20 per cent. Therefore, I should have thought that he would have been acutely concerned, as I am, about those elderly people whose rates bill at the moment is proving so burdensome, and for whom this legislation will provide a great deal of relief.
It is quite assuredly the case that the elderly person or the single-parent family, struggling to meet a rates bill, is very resentful of the fact that in the neighbouring house, and paying the same amount in rates, there may be three, four or even more people, each earning an income. Therefore, on the basis of ability to pay, that household would be better able to make a contribution to the costs of the local government.
Perhaps the impression has been given this afternoon that the Committee stage was rather disagreeable and fruitless. I do not believe that. There have been rare moments of unanimity. The hon. Member for Cathcart, who raised a matter to which I shall come presently, was in Committee on the two occasions when we discussed the rating burden upon Scottish sports grounds. As he made a tendentious and unfair intervention earlier in the debate, I shall take the opportunity of placing clearly on the record exactly what happened in Committee. It is of considerable relevance to the timetable motion and also to the Report stage, on which occasion I hope that it will be possible to return to this matter.
Concern about the rates that are levied on sports clubs in Scotland is so widespread, north and south of the border, that I imagine that you may have had some representations on that matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Scottish amateur sports clubs pay substantially more in rates than their English counterparts. That has led to financial difficulties for some clubs and even threatened their future.
Bearing in mind that Parliament has already laid down the powers by which local authorities may grant discretionary relief, with some reluctance, Committee members felt it necessary to move amendments to provide mandatory relief. History to that point suggested that, in general, local authorities in Scotland were unwilling to provide for discretionary relief to mitigate the rates burden and enable sports clubs to remain in existence.
I cannot emphasise too much the importance of those clubs, especially when school sporting fixtures and arrangements have been disrupted by industrial action in schools. Therefore, amateur sports clubs play an increasing role. Bearing that in mind, several amendments were tabled in Committee—they were not probing, but substantive amendments—and were signed by Conservative as well as Opposition Members.
In reply, the Minister made it clear that the technical definitions were inadequate, and I accept his advice. In Committee, Opposition Members referred again and again


to the fact that my technical definition of an amateur sports club was inadequate for those purposes. Those amendments put the point firmly and clearly to the Minister that all hon. Members felt that the spirit of the amendments had been supported by Labour, alliance and Conservative Members. The amendments would have provided mandatory relief.
When the Minister advised me that there were problems on two major counts, I said that I was prepared to withdraw the amendments on the express understanding that, after the necessary consultations with ministerial colleagues, he would table Government amendments on Report to meet their spirit.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Exactly.

Mr. Hirst: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman supports me.
Bearing in mind that those amendments were not raised just to articulate a particular problem, but that they were designed to ensure a specific reaction, in the face of the Minister's advice that they were technically deficient, I believed that the proper course was to withdraw them but to make it clear that I should return to them on Report. Therefore, it was very sad that a Division was forced in Committee. Presumably, that will prevent me from tabling a similar amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I am advised that that may prevent me from returning to the same point on Report. I was prepared to withdraw the amendments because I attached the highest importance to having some provision in the legislation to help Scottish sports clubs.
A further point, which did not appear in our Committee discussions, was that the amendments as framed would grant relief from 1989–90 onwards. The position is more urgent than that. Without tabling new clauses, I could not provide relief more immediately, which is what I want. In view of what I have said today I hope that my ministerial colleagues can table amendments on Report, despite the timetable, to meet the spirit of my amendments.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is serious anxiety about this? I address my remarks to the Minister through the hon. Gentleman. For example, the modest Linlithgow cricket ground—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot debate now matters which were the subject of amendments in Committee. We are debating a timetable motion. I understood that the hon. Gentleman invoked the debate on these issues only with reference to our procedures, rather than on the intrinsic merits of the amendments. In so far as the intervention has a bearing on the motion before the House, I shall allow it, but we are not here to debate the wisdom, or lack of it, of imposing rates on sports clubs.

Mr. Dalyell: Many people in Scotland will not be too worried about our procedures, but they will be worried about the differences between the Linlithgow—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No matter what the people in Scotland may think, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have regard to the fact that I have a responsibility to ensure that the Standing Orders and procedures of the House are complied with.

Mr. Dalyell: I simply reinforce the point that the contrast between the Linlithgow ground and the Worcester ground is typical of the sort of contrast that exists.

Mr. Hirst: I welcome support, from whatever source, and I am glad to know that the hon. Gentleman supports the spirit of the amendments that I proposed.
Important matters in the Bill remain to be discussed. I am reassured by what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said this afternoon about sufficient time being given to future sittings in Committee to facilitate a constructive, full discussion of these matters. I look forward to participating in them.

Mr. David Lambie: I felt sorry for the Leader of the House when he moved the motion to curtail further debate, and I am sorry that he is not present now. He spoke in a vacuum as an English Member of Parliament, knowing nothing about conditions in Scotland. He said that he was reading a brief prepared by some young Milton in his Department. I fear that that young Milton, like the previous Milton, also knew nothing about conditions in Scotland. He may be an expert on England, but he knows nothing about Scotland.
Listening to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), I realised that the longer a Member is in the House nothing tones him up more than being sacked from the Front Bench. I have thoroughly enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's speeches since he left the Front Bench. I remember when we used to ask him questions on industry and education when he was a Minister. He would not answer and, indeed, seldom spoke, but suddenly there is a reincarnation— sacked from the Government and facing a general election, he is back speaking in Parliament and I agree with many of his recent remarks, with the exception of those on Prestwick airport.
Listening to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) also reminded me of the feeling that we always have before a general election, when Members who are fighting for their seats and know that they may be defeated suddenly begin to take an interest in local matters such as sports clubs. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is unworthy."] I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you saw the Channel 4 programme on Thursday night which surveyed marginal seats and dealt with the hon. Member's seat. Channel 4's public opinion poll found that the Labour candidate was ahead of the hon. Gentleman by 16 per cent, last week, so you will realise why the hon. Gentleman is trying to cover his ground now on sports clubs.

Mr. Hirst: rose—

Mr. Lambie: I put it to the hon. Gentleman—this is where he made a serious error and let down sports clubs in Scotland—that no Minister gave an assurance that an amendment would be tabled on Report. I read the Official Report and the Minister said clearly that he was prepared to look at the arguments, but he never said that he would table an amendment to meet those arguments and the anomalies that the hon. Gentleman's amendment made apparent.

Mr. Hirst: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that consultation is taking place between Department officials with a view to finding some sort of definition? I see that


as a hopeful sign. Does the hon. Gentleman agree? Does he also agree that it is unfair to suggest that the interests of Conservative Members in the plight of sports clubs is new-found? Does he recall the occasion when I went with him to a meeting of sports clubs as a representative from my party when there were very few from his party?

Mr. Lambie: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, but he has not answered my point. We can have all the consultations we want, but unless the Government are prepared to table an amendment on Report, the change will not be made. No matter what Scottish Conservative Members think or how they vote, if the Government put on a three-line Whip, Conservative Members will vote for Government policy and not for what Scottish Tory Members want. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance today that definite amendments will be submitted on Report to deal with this matter.
There are many reasons for the guillotine, but the main reason is to get the Bill on the statute book before the general election. The Government want it, not to implement it but to use it in the political battle before the general election as something that the Tory Government have done for Scottish ratepayers. Considering the electorate's opinion in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and applying that across Scotland, it is clear that not one Minister on the Front Bench tonight will be returned at the general election. Even the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) will not be returned, and nor will many Back Bench Members. Despite this camouflage of dealing with the rates, the people of Scotland will get rid of the Tories once and for all as public representatives in the House.
What is wrong with the rating system in Scotland? That is the fundamental question with which we are dealing tonight. Under the Tory Government, the rate support grant has gradually decreased from 70 per cent, to about 56 per cent. In all probability, in a few weeks' time we shall have a new rate support grant formula which will show a further reduction in the percentage of relevant expenditure. The Scots continued with the revaluation of property in 1973 when the English stopped it. I blame some colleagues here and most colleagues in local government for that. Under this Bill we shall have a further revaluation in 1990. We are told by Ministers that the English will also have a revaluation in 1990, but I do not believe it.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that under the Bill there will be a revaluation only for non-domestic property in 1990? Under the Labour party's policy there will be a total revaluation in 1990.

Mr. Lambie: I accept that under the provisions of the Bill there will be a revaluation only of non-domestic property in 1990, but I am not concerned only about domestic ratepayers. I am also concerned about business ratepayers. I am concerned about every ratepayer in Scotland. We shall carry out another revaluation of industry, starting in Scotland in 1990. The Government have promised only that they may do it in England and Wales. The main reason for the Bill is that we have had a revaluation every five years in Scotland and the last two

caused such a revolt among Scottish ratepayers that the Government were forced to do something. That is why we are saddled with the Bill.
What do English Members think will be the effect in England and Wales in 1990 if the Government carry out a revaluation and raise English property valuation levels from 1973 levels to 1990 levels? There was a revolution in Scotland over the five-year period. The Government will get more than a revolution in England if they bring 1973 property valuation levels to 1990 levels. The Government will not have a revaluation in 1990 and the English will not have a poll tax in 1990 because to introduce a poll tax the Government must first reintroduce the revaluation process. The Bill is a con. It is an attempt by the Tory Government to enhance their position in Scotland so as to retain the few seats that they have..
The effects of the Bill will be felt by Scotland only from 1989 to 1992. The Bill will not be introduced immediately and over a period its effects will be reduced. I assure the House that after the general election I shall come back as a Labour Member of Parliament representing a constituency with a solid Labour vote. If, unfortunately, the people in the south-east vote to keep the Conservative Government in power, I shall be able to come back and say, as I have said on all valuation and rating issues since the end of 1970, that I told the Government that they would not be able to do what they intended to do.
I am willing to bet that the Government will not introduce the poll tax if they win the next general election and certainly will not introduce the system proposed for Scotland in England and Wales. Even the people in the south will realise that the Government do not represent the people of the United Kingdom and will vote with the people from Wales, the north and Scotland. When we have a change of Government we can re-examine the system of valuation and rating so that we may be fair to all ratepayers, whether they be in the south of England or in the north of Scotland. This Bill will not help the Tory party or the ratepayers in Scotland.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am prepared to accept what the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) had to say about his prospects of being supported by his electors. He is in a unique position. He is one of the few Opposition Members— if not the only one— who oppose the rating system. It became perfectly clear during our deliberations-which is why I saw no need to detain the Committee further—that the Labour party's purpose was to wreck the Bill; not to make any constructive representations but, rather, to act as an unthinking mouthpiece for COSLA which, sadly, briefed only the Opposition parties during the course of the Bill and organised secret liaisons with them. That was an unfortunate pattern of events.

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman's remark about COSLA is outrageous. He and all members of the Committee were given an opportunity to receive regular briefings from COSLA. If the hon. Gentleman did not avail himself of that opportunity, that is his problem, not COSLA's.

Mr. Forsyth: I assume that the hon. Gentleman suffers from poor memory. He was in the Committee when I read extracts from COSLA's policy committee meeting minutes


about the regular meetings that it was to have with Opposition Members only and also the team of experts who would be on hand to brief them. After one or two sessions, the team of experts seemed to disappear and we were left with empty public seats that in no way reflected the hysteria and storm of protest that the Opposition whipped up and told us was growing in Scotland because of the Government's proposals to introduce a community charge.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Is it not a fact that COSLA experts left in despair because it became increasingly obvious that the Opposition could not understand half their amendments?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is quite right. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), in his normal courteous way, during the course of proceedings in Committee took considerable time to explain to hon. Gentlemen exactly what COSLA's intentions were. Whatever happened at the secret meetings with COSLA representatives, they obviously did not discuss what the amendments meant. No doubt they had other matters to discuss.
The guillotine motion is not before time. We have had about 100 hours of debate. During the course of those debates—my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) was unfair to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton)— we discovered that the Labour party was totally committed to the existing rating system, that it wished to extend it further to cover agricultural land and buildings, and that it wished to have regular revaluations in Scotland. That fact has been firmly placed on the record. We have also discovered that it is determined to destroy the Bill because it believes that it will help only minorities. During the debates, Labour Members made it clear that, although they are prepared to concede that it will help single-parent families, widows and pensioners, they consider them to be a small percentage of the community and, therefore, of no relevance in the generality of the system.
I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Munro). He suggested that the use of the guillotine is unfortunate because we have not had an opportunity to discuss matters of principle. We have discussed all the major elements of principle. I hope that when the Bill goes to another place it will have a swift passage. The principle of introducing a community charge and abolishing the rating system has been discussed ad nauseum with many amendments, discussions and opportunities to reiterate the view that Oppostion Members have taken— that the community charge is unfair.

Mr. Henderson: Did not the Committee take over 25 hours to debate clause I, which contains the simple proposition that, from April 1990, domestic rates will be abolished? It is an important matter of principle certainly, but should it have required 25 hours to debate that straightforward proposition?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is being very unfair to the Opposition. They were in difficulty and had to decide in Committee what their policy was. I understand that the debates on clause I continued for almost 25 hours while their policy was handed down from on high. At first we were told in Committee that it was not their job to say

what their policy was, but later we had a clear enunciation of their policy— a clear commitment to the existing rating system and the status quo.
Perhaps we ought to have more time to discuss how the Opposition's hints could be made into reality. There have been hints that the Opposition might favour capital values. However, when it was pointed out to them that there had been difficulties over the rating of sports clubs and other organisations in Scotland because of a method that depended upon capital values for assessing rateable values, they seemed to move away from it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) pointed out, I agree with the Glasgow Herald that a disorganised Opposition have been operating on an opportunist basis. On the one hand, they have argued that they want to wreck the Bill; on the other hand, they have argued that they want to improve it. They have even tabled amendments whose meaning they did not understand.

Mr. Maxton: indicated dissent.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. However, in Committee he asked my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South to explain to him what the amendment standing in his name meant. If that is not wasting the time of the Committee, I do not know what is. Furthermore, last night in Committee the hon. Gentleman told us that his purpose was to wreck the Bill. These matters are on record and are beyond dispute. That is not what we expected in Committee. I expected to hear a closely argued demolition of the community charge. Also I expected to hear about the Opposition's alternatives for widows, single people and others in Scotland who are facing hardship because of:he rating system. We heard nothing about that. Instead, there was opposition for opposition's sake.
As for alliance Members, who are not even in the Chamber, they, too, have been very noisy. I read in the newspapers and hear that they intend to fight the Bill to the bitter end. Obviously they are all fighting it somewhere else— presumably in Greenwich. It is something of a revelation to me to discover the difference between what the alliance say not just to each other but what appears in the newspapers and what they do in this place. It has been an enjoyable Committee stage, if only because it has reinforced the view of my hon. Friends that the Government are proceeding in a carefully thought out and constructive way towards meeting the problems that the people of Scotland have to face because of the rating system and that the Opposition have nothing to offer by way of an alternative.
It is important that we should make progress and deal with the detailed matters, not just matters of principle, that still remain to be discussed. We know that there will be a community charge and a rebate system and that rates will be abolished. These are the main matters of substance that still have to be discussed. It is extraordinary that the Opposition, who made so much hay during the last rating revaluation, who were so critical and went out of their way to try to pin on the Government the blame for revaluation and for the undoubted hardship that is being caused because of the distortion of the rating system, should be so firmly attached to the principle of continuing with the policy of more of the same instead of discussing what can be done about it.

Mr. Lambie: The hon. Gentleman is being very unfair when he suggests that opposition to the revaluation was confined to one party. The problems that have been caused by revaluation in Scotland were spread over two Governments. I was a member of a joint deputation that included the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), now the Secretary of State for Defence, that met my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie), the Minister of State, Scottish Office at that time, on the occasion of the first Scottish revaluation. Therfore, the opposition to revaluation in Scotland, when there was to be no revaluation in England and Wales, was on an all-party basis. Opposition was not confined to one party for electoral purposes.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that he is opposed to revaluation, because he opposes the rating system. Regrettably, the Labour party is committed to the rating system. We cannot have a credible rating system without revaluation. That is why the hon. Gentleman was quite wrong to tell the House that there would be no poll tax, by which I assume he meant a community charge, in England because there could not possibly be a revaluation. I agree with him that a revaluation of domestic properties in England would cause hardship along the lines that we have experienced in Scotland. That is why I have every confidence that when this Government are once again returned to power after the next general election there will be a Bill to introduce a community charge in England, thereby abolishing the need for revaluation of domestic properties.
The hon. Gentleman appears to be the champion of commercial ratepayers. He said that he was concerned about the revaluation of commercial premises in Scotland. I am prepared to accept his word, but I suggest that he should find himself another party. He is a member of the party that in Committee opposed the idea of limiting increases in commercial rates to the rate of inflation. His party's policy is to have regular commercial revaluations and, in addition, to remove all controls on local authority expenditure. It would take us back to the days when businesses had to face 30 or 40 per cent, rate increases that bore no relation to their ability to pay and to the days when widows and single parents were faced with huge rate increases. That would be done as a sop to those who hold the reins of power in local government.
It is important that the Bill should reach the statute book as quickly as possible, not because I see the need for a speedy general election but because it is important to the electors of Scotland and to local government confidence. The Bill will restore power to local government at local level. Local government will be able to make its own decisions. It will remove all the machinery of controls on expenditure and make local government directly accountable to the electorate. It will be able to spend what it likes and to do what it likes, in the secure and certain knowledge that it will have to answer for it and explain the bill that the electors have to pay. It is that aspect of the Bill that appals the Labour party. The game is up. The Labour party will no longer be able to force a minority to pay.
The Opposition are opposed to the guillotine motion because they wish the corrupt system from which they have benefited to continue. Under that corrupt system, local government is funded by a tiny minority while the majority are weaned on promises. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting the guillotine motion. It will

enable us to get on with delivering local government out of the hands of the Labour party and into the hands of the people.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I believe that there should be more discussion of the Bill. It ill becomes the Government to impose a guillotine. As a member of the Committee, I felt that we were making reasonable progress. The Committee has reached clause 20. There is no reason to suggest that we are not making more progress on this Bill than we have made on other Bills.
The Government have not provided answers to many of the questions that are worrying us. For the first time, young people between the ages of 18 and 21 will find themselves in court if they do not pay fines that are to be imposed by taxes that will be enforced by this Government. We do not know whether the Government will allow local authorities to recover fines through the deplorable sheriff warrant system that we have in Scotland. A precedent will be created. The Minister, in Committee and on Second Reading, did not answer that. For example, in a household of five or six people, four may be paying the community tax. What will happen if the sheriff officers come in? It is the law in Scotland that sheriff officers can take possession of and put up for pointing any item in the household, regardless of whom it belongs to. It may be an item borrowed from a next-door neighbour, but that could still be removed from the premises and sold to recover the debt.
It would not be fair if all members of a family, with the exception of one, paid their taxes, but that one individual brought about a situation in which the sheriffs officer was called in and the whole family's property was jeopardised by that one person. If the Minister intends to bring in this type of legislation he should tell us what will happen in those situations. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) to tell us that people in Scotland welcome the legislation, but it is our duty, in Committee, to go into the matter in depth and let the people of Scotland know that everything will not be in apple pie order as the hon. Gentleman tries to make out. Regardless of whether the legislation is carried, the local authorities and people of Scotland will still reject the policies of the Thatcher Government and the administration of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Gentleman should not kid himself that the legislation will get the Tories off the hook in Scotland. More and more people will vote Labour at future local elections.

Mr. Henderson: Would the hon. Gentleman care to bet whether there will ever be a Labour councillor in northeast Fife, or whether the Labour candidate in north-east Fife will get a higher percentage of the vote than the Tory candidate in his constituency?

Mr. Martin: I do not know what goes on in the part of Fife that the hon. Gentleman talks about, but in Glasgow, as he knows full well, the Tory party is suffering-not only because of the campaigns that we have waged in Glasgow, but because of the policies of the Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland, which are causing a great deal of damage to the Tory party. Traditional Tory party areas are losing seats all over the place in local government.
In Committee, the Minister has not given us a full explanation of the matters that were discussed yesterday. We do not have a full explanation as to who the so-called responsible person will be that the registering officer will designate. He will be required to give information for the register on each individual in that household. We are told that, if the wrong information is given, that could lead to the person being fined, or if that person refuses to give information, measures will be taken against him.
In many cities in Scotland people live in bedsit accommodation, not as a family but as individuals who pool money to pay the rent. They have no connection except that they stay at the same address. They are not living as a family. The Minister has not given us an explanation of that.
My fear—our fears have not been allayed—is that elderly people may be harassed when registration officers call to ask questions. If a young person is not paying a community tax, questions will be put, in many cases, to elderly parents, such as, "Where is your son? When was the last time you saw him? When was he last in the house? Does he visit?" All those questions may worry a person who is elderly, in had health or frightened of authority. We have not been told how people's rights will be safeguarded when the registration officer comes to the door. We should be entitled to more consideration.
I do not accept what the hon. Member for Stirling says—that, because the Tories have come up with a poll tax, we should have something to put in its place. If the Tories come up with legislation that I do not like, I am entitled to oppose it. I do not have to have anything else to put in its place.
The Tories are abolishing the rates system. Although it has many faults, the rating system is better than what the Tories are proposing. They are introducing a poll tax, and taxing young people who stay with their parents. They are taxing big families, people in communities like my own and in places such as Possilpark, Springburn, where unemployment is very high, and Denison, where young families are striving to make a living. It ill becomes the hon. Member for Stirling to say that we should be putting something in its place. If we cannot find something better than a poll tax, we should be quiet. The rating system is far better than what the Government propose.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: Since I have been in the House I have been involved in about 30 Standing Committees. This is probably the worst Opposition that I have ever experienced on any Standing Committee. It was tragic. Good government and good legislation require good opposition. In this case, the Opposition were found wanting. They had only two amendments accepted; one was a probing amendment and the other they did not know the meaning of. One paltry argument followed the other.
Probing amendments were frequently withdrawn as Opposition Members failed to sustain a case, as they fail to sustain so many cases. That served to highlight the smugness and arrogance of Labour Members, who did not do their homework and believed that no change was OK. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was the first string in this Committee. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) was the second string. In the 16th century, some Spanish ladies used to parade with apes to enhance their rather dubious charms.

Those of us who had to listen to that deadly duo find the analogy quite appropriate. As for the contribution of the alliance, none of whom are present, I was reminded of an old section of the Reader's Digest, which said that it pays to increase your word power. It did not increase our knowledge.
The Bill has been more than justified by the Ministers in charge and, despite the Opposition, it has had a good airing. That augurs well for a future Bill for England, which will be introduced in the new session. The test that was proposed for the Bill is its fairness, simplicity and accountability. Fairness is probably the first principle.
The burden of rates has fallen on too small a section of Scottish society. The Opposition would have us believe that the burden can be borne lightly, thus relieving non-payers. Is that the truth, however? Far too many of my constituents wrote far too many letters contradicting that view—there were 2,000 a week at its height. They are not rich. Many are elderly with admittedly biggish houses which have been family houses and which they are reluctant to leave because of happy memories. Are they to be relocated? Many have very little in the bank—sometimes as little as £500 or £600, but enough to attract no benefits, and some pay more than £1,000 a year in rates.
Those who advance the pathetic and curious argument that all who live in "big houses" are loaded should come to the more genteel parts of my constituency, such as Gourock, where they will see that genteel penury is no more attractive than the penury found in the most deprived areas. By paying rates of such magnitude, those people supported families in other areas who received many state benefits and enjoyed a rate-free existence, but they had to penny-pinch and save. In Committee we got nothing but the politics of envy and the size of people's houses from the Opposition. Such arguments do not pass the test of fairness.
The community charge would redistribute the burden. Of course some people will pay for the first time, but they will pay the equivalent of a packet of cigarettes a week for street lighting, dustbin collection, street cleaning, libraries, burial grounds, roads, sewers and clean water. That sounds like a bargain. Why should they not pay? It is a fair principle.,Naturally, many better-off people may benefit, but bearing in mind the other burdens of taxation that are laid upon them, why not?
We should all attempt to contribute something to our society. It is a principle. Despite what the Labour party tried to tell us in Committee, the Scottish people are highly principled. For those who are not, perhaps accountability may for the first time impinge on their consciences. Perhaps then, local councils, which are mostly controlled by Labour, would not be able to use special bribery status areas quite as freely as they can at the moment to boost their electoral hopes.
Although the community charge is not a poll tax arid therefore not a tax on the right to vote—there will be no direct connection with the right to vote—the connection may be established in a different way. It may have a direct bearing on the way in which votes are cast in future. Perhaps that, above all, is why the Opposition just do not like the Bill.
Strangely enough, the two main principles were disposed of relatively quickly in Committee, but hours of false outrage were expended on methods of collection. There were wild accusations about a betrayal of human rights. The whole nasty gamut of rhetoric emerged and


fizzled out, but not before the Opposition were rowing among themselves on a point of principle. Victory did not go to the Front Bench, but to an elder statesman who is laying down the burden at the next election.
It seems that I am restricted by time, but I have one more thing to say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), who has just left the Chamber. We have heard of the proposals being made at the expense of Glasgow. Last weekend, there were five symphony concerts and three new restaurants opened. There is a healthy economy in Glasgow. Surely somebody must be benefiting. We should hear a bit more about areas such as mine which are not as well served as Glasgow and which have been milked dry by Glasgow for years. It is time that the balance was redressed, and I believe that the Bill can do that.

Mr. Jim Craigen: My constituency will not benefit from the Bill. The figures show that all six wards within the Glasgow district will be worse off. In my written evidence in response to the Green Paper, I reckoned that between £8 million and £12 million would be taken out of my area's purchasing power.
We should be blunt about it. The Bill was born out of the panic which set into Scottish Toryism after the 1985 revaluation. It owes more to the plight of the Scottish Tory party than it does to reducing the difficulties of Scottish ratepayers. The poll tax being proposed will be no more progressive than the present rating system, with all its disadvantages. It certainly will not produce greater accountability because 80 per cent. of local authority revenue will be determined by the Government. It most certainly will not iron out the rating and valuation disparities between Scotland and England about which many of us received letters during the 1985 revaluation. I do not think that it will last because it lacks the consensus that is necessary for any system of local government finance.
I have listened to Ministers talk about this so-called radical system. The idea of a poll tax is so old that this dumb lot think that it is a novel means of taxation. I give the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) full marks. He laboured away in the House of Commons Library on his wee pamphlet, "A Case for a Poll Tax" and the desperate men on the Government Front Bench were so lacking in ideas of their own that they adopted it. They have been talking about reforming the rating system for the past 17 years. The right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) was talking about it in 1970 when I fought him as a Labour and Co-operative candidate. He was a longer serving Secretary of State for Scotland than most, but he did nothing to introduce legislation on the subject. It is the Conservatives who have set the agenda for rating reform.
I have been guillotined in this debate, so my final point is that the Government have a way of putting the most awkward things at the end of a Bill. I want more time to discuss the new revenue support grant, which is to replace rate support grant, and what it means in terms of the finance available to local authorities. Business men in England were asked by the Department of the Environment to comment on the Green Paper and the national non-domestic rate which is proposed. They expressed the fear that it might end up as another source

of finance for the Government, rather like the road fund licence. Thus business men could contribute to the non-domestic rate while the Treasury filches the money.
With this Bill, Scotland is being asked to pay a heavy price to save a dwindling number of Conservative Members and Ministers who are on their way out anyway.

Mr. Donald Dewar: This has not been a pleasant debate or one which has reflected much credit on the House. I hope that, when the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) reads her speech, as no doubt she will, she will regret some of her opening remarks. We extend a certain traditional courtesy to our colleagues in the House, irrespective of party, but I think that she has gone some way to forfeiting that right in the future.
A 26-minute speech from the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) did not greatly improve the tenor of the argument or the quality of life of any of us, but I suppose that we must put up with that.
I express thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Paisley, North (Mr. Adams) and all the other Labour Members who have worked extremely hard on this Bill in Committee and had to put up with a great deal.
Many sour comments have been made during the debate and in Committee. If the Bill is such a triumph for Ministers—many splendid speeches have been made and much propaganda has been propagated by the Government in Committee—why are we faced with a guillotine? I can only assume that it is because Conservative Members have had to spend many hours listening to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. That is an occupation that lacks inspirational content.
I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was mentioned in the columns of The Scotsman the other day, praising the efforts and the effectiveness of my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart. That uncharacteristically generous and balanced judgment arose because he was credited with certain remarks of mine. However, today, an apology appeared in The Scotsman. I understood and appreciated that those remarks were unintentionally attributed to the Under-Secretary of State but I recommend that precedent to him. If he followed it he would improve the quality of his output in future.
The management of the Bill, about which I feel strongly, has been mistaken and at times offensive. There has been a great deal of indecent haste, and there is a feeling that from the beginning the Government have expected there to be a guillotine, have been reconciled to one and have been prepared to force the Bill through in the minimum of time and with the minimum of effort. The whole thing has been extraordinary.
The questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) cry out to be answered, but they have not been. Why does the Bill exist? Why have the Government suddenly abandoned their considered position? Why have they betrayed the work that has been done by Conservative Governments over many years on the problems of the rating system? The record confirms what many hon. Members have long guessed—that the Bill arose because of arguments of expediency, because of political opportunism and because of a fear about a rapid deterioration in the Tories' electoral


position in Scotland. That is not the basis for a sensible, far-reaching and significant reform of local government structure.
The House will remember—it has already been mentioned—that a Green Paper was published in 1981. We do not hear much about the Green Paper because it addressed itself to the arguments about a poll tax. It made the case against the poll tax extremely persuasively. That must be something of an embarrassment to the Government.
In August 1983 the present Administration produced their own White Paper. That White Paper contained the Government's decision that the rating system was fundamentally sound and that the alternatives should be rejected. The volte face, the climb down, is not an issue of principle, but, I repeat, a surrender to expediency.
The Secretary of State, who inherited that solution, is probably embarrassed. However, he has the admirable discipline of a trained advocate and presents a bad case without flinching.
The Leader of the House made no effort to justify what he was laying before the House. He did not suggest that there was a filibuster. He did not say that the guillotine was necessary for certain reasons. He said, in effect, that the Government had decided to have a guillotine and that it suited their convenience. That is not an impressive or a compelling argument for the motion.
It is easy to be cynical. It may well be that the arguments against a guillotine are no more than ritual rage and fury and that the Opposition are simply doing what the Opposition must do. Personally, I have no enthusiasm for guillotines. I have been a Labour Front Bench spokesman for five years. During that time—the Minister may take this as a compliment—there have been many highly contentious Bills. We have had the entire gamut of the war between local and central Government appearing in statutory form for consideration. However, during those five years we have had only one guillotine on a Scottish Bill.
I take no particular pride in guillotines. They are not some sort of machismo badge that the Opposition should strike and count at the end of every year to see what they have achieved. That is a ludicrous proposition. However, a guillotine in this case was inevitable because of the way in which the Government set about their business. There was a cynical clocking up of the hours.
The Leader of the House delicately said that the motion was not quite unprecedented, and he produced an example from a far distant place and a far different legislative subject. I have never served on the Committee of a Bill that has been guillotined, and I am a battle-scared veteran of Committee stages of Scottish Bills. I have never known a sittings motion that started off with double banking on day one, and on day two we met again at 9 o'clock. I cannot remember a Bill in which there has been so little interest in any sort of constructive debate.
I did not expect Ministers to give concessions on essential matters of principle which struck at the heart of the scheme. I recognise that they are ghirled to it and that they are thrawn and obstinately committed to this scheme for reasons that I believe are deeply mistaken.
It was always possible to have an intelligent, flexible and sensible approach at another tier, but I cannot remember any legislation where there has been more alarm, concern and anxiety about the practicalities, the nuts and bolts, how the scheme will operate and whether

it can be operated. That conies not just from COSLA and local Labour councils, but from almost everyone who has expertise and conviction in this sector who has taken the trouble to consider the possibilities and to make comments and points about the legislation. We have had nothing from the Conservative party.
I was astonished at the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, who brought forward a quite extraordinary doctrine. She suggested that the effectiveness of an Opposition was judged by the number of concessions made by the Government. If that is the way in which she judges the effectiveness of an Opposition, she may have an unhappy time when she is on the Opposition Benches. I know the hon. Lady well enough to know that she will pop up again, although I think that her chances locally are distinctly gloomy. I asked the House to look at that yardstick that was put forward, but it should agree that. it hardly merits serious consideration.
The Government were determined to push the Bill through. They were determined to have as little delay arid as little in the way of debate as they could get away with. The Leader of the House had to come forward and argue a case, almost by default, on that basis.
I have listened to the speeches this evening and I have not heard anything to change my mind on that. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) made a blistering attack. That attack was a sign of shining ability that no doubt persuaded other Conservative Members that he should return to the Back Benches. I was not impressed.

Mr. Allan Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman's analysis of the Opposition's tactics is correct—that they wish to be constructive and deal with technical points—why did they spend 25 hours on clause 1?

Mr. Dewar: The Leader of the House made the point that a good deal of progress had been made. We are at clause 20. The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) suggested that clause 1 was a simple matter. That may be the view of a simple mind. However, the clause strikes at the heart of a fundamental argument about the way in which we organise local government finance.
The truth is that we are considering a political gesture. This measure must go on the statute book. It will be borne like a talisman into battle in areas like Pentlands, Edinburgh, South and Eastwood to try to rally the Tory faithful and see the Conservative party through the dark days.
We object fundamentally to the proposed scheme. It is unrelated to the ability to pay. It will undoubtedly bring about a substantial switch in the contributions made and the percentages that areas give to local taxation between the more prosperous and the less prosperous.
I have no doubt that there are some attractive arguments for the scheme. I am certainly riot one of those who would sweep aside the problems of people such as the widow to whom the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden referred. One must look at the balance of social justice that lies behind the scheme.
Let me give a warning—this is the only point that I shall mention in substance—to those who have calculated what their community charges might be arid compared them with their current rates bills. One can hear the cash registers ringing as they rush to support the


scheme. They should take a longer view, even if personal financial advantage is to be the way in which to judge something as far-reaching as this.
The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) made a virtue of the fact that industry and commerce will be tied to the retail prices index, which means that the buoyancy revenue will fall on what was once the domestic ratepayer but is not the payer of the community charge. The hon. Gentleman grins with delight because he sees the narrow political advantage in that. However, he does not realise that many things could happen, such as new section duties, or the—21 million that the administration of this scheme will cost local government, or wage settlements funded at only 50 per cent. with the rest to come from rates. Instead of these additions being spread across the board, they will all fall upon the community charge. The comforting gap that the people in Pentlands, Eastwood and Strathkelvin and Bearsden think will be there for all time will suddenly start closing with alarming rapidity.
The gearing is vicious, and the community charge will start rising fast, not because of profligacy, irresponsibility or Socialist policies, but because of the escalator built into the scheme. I warn the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, if he survives the next election—who am I to make a judgment on that?—that in a few years' time the widows about whom he is concerned now will not be thanking him for the community charge because in their eyes it will be becoming the monster that it is in ours now.
There is every reason for looking sceptically at and properly debating this Bill. There is the administrative nightmare with which we shall be faced when this incredible and unworkable scheme, which has been criticised from almost every side, is put into operation. There are the problems of second homes, hostels, students, collection, diligence and the register. These points have not been properly discussed because of the way in which the Government have set about their business.
As most of my hon. Friends would concede, I have considerable respect for the Committee procedure. Committees can be extremely valuable and productive. I look back with particular pleasure on a number of Committees, some of which I have shared with Conservative Members. This appears to have been rather an arid Committee, because of the approach taken by the Government, who have seen the Committee merely as a irritating procedural exercise that has to be completed. The motion shows no respect for the procedures of the House, and it has set, or threatens to set, some unpalatable precedents that Conservative Members may regret when, within a few short months, they find themselves on the Opposition Benches. It would be much more sensible if the Secretary of State would tell the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) that he is scrapping the guillotine motion and going back to a proper consideration of the Bill. That consideration should be done with flexibility, honesty and openness of mind, because that would produce better legislation.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The various Opposition parties have sought to convey fury at the timetable motion that the House is being asked to accept. That sound and fury would have been a bit more convincing if, for the greater part of the

debate, there had been more than a dozen Scottish Labour Members in the Chamber. The fact that more than two thirds of Scottish Labour Members have failed to take any part, even by their presence, in the debate cannot be reconciled with the argument that this is a constitutional outrage. In addition, apart from the past five minutes, the Scottish National party has not been present for the debate and the Liberal party in Scotland has had no presence. Its sole contribution was the speech by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) who serves on
the Committee.

Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber): The right hon. and learned Gentleman is an honest man. Surely he will admit that on ritualistic occasions such as this, the last thing that Members of Parliament want to do is spend time listening to other Members of Parliament going on.

Mr. Rifkind: That is a most extraordinary admission from the hon. Member. His party has characterised the motion as a constitutional outrage, but so uninterested are they in it that not one of their members, with the solitary exception of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), who graced us with his presence for five minutes. has thought it appropriate to be present on this occasion. If the people of Scotland could see the absence of interest by the Opposition parties in this debate they would come to a clear conclusion.
The House will be reminded of the remark on a previous occasion by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who is Opposition Front Bench spokesman on trade and industry, during a debate on a similar motion during the last Labour Government:
There is a growing conviction that to make too much fuss about a timetable is indulging in a certain amount of hypocrisy."—[Official Report, 7 July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 162.]
When the Leader of the House said last week that there would be a timetable motion, we got an indignant response from the two Opposition Front Bench spokesmen in Committee. Such was their indignation that they thought it appropriate to issue a joint statement, which was reported in the press. They protested that the Opposition had not attempted deliberately to delay the Bill. However, they had "argued forcibly".
I am sure that a number of my hon. Friends will have consulted the proceedings in Committee to see what this forcible argument amounted to. For example, they will have seen the contribution of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) when he introduced his amendment No. 41. He said:
I hope that the Minister understands the words on the amendment paper or that his advisers can tell him what they mean, because I have no idea. Can the Minister give me an explanation?"[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 15 January 1987; c. 330.]
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) the other Opposition spokesman, moved amendment No. 118, provided for the Opposition by COSLA. After explaining COSLA's views, he said:
I confess that I do not understand that."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 22 January 1987; c. 584.]
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) was in a slightly more difficult position. At least the two hon. Gentleman could vote for their amendments, because


they knew about them. He found, to his discomfiture, that he had no awareness at least one amendment on which his name appeared. He informed his colleagues:
I have not been consulted about the matter and I am getting a wee bit tired of being the odd man out being totally misunderstood when I talk about an amendment."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 29 January 1987; c. 742.]
I am bound to say to the House—

Mr. George Foulkes: Not hound.

Mr. Rilkind: Well, I am going to say it.
I must say to the House that it may be contributions of this fluency from the Opposition that explain the conclusion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that the Committee had been a little arid. He suggested that that was the Government's fault, but let us consider not the Government's view or the Opposition's view of whose responsibility it is, but that of the Scottish press. He will know that that is not a great friend of the Conservative party or the Government.
I want to start with an independent newspaper; the Glasgow Herald, which, under the heading "Weak
opposition" stated:
The results so far have been undramatic, though there was some pointless backbench filibustering at the end of the year. The promised major offensive has failed to materialise.
The report continued:
The result is another piece of ineffectual opposition.
I appreciate that Opposition Members may not consider that to be a very Socialist paper and may say, "Well, what would you expect the Glasgow Herald to say?" Let us consider what the Scottish Daily Record said. Opposition Members will agree that that newspaper is normally friendly to the Labour party cause. That paper stated:
But Labour's promise to give rates reform a rough ride has never really materialised.

Mr. Foulkes: What about the Sunday Post?

Mr. Rifkind: I could quote from the Sunday Post, but I want to refer to a newspaper which is at least as much in tune with the Labour party as the Scottish Daily Record. I want to refer to the Glasgow Evening Times. What did that paper say about the party which it normally supports?
Under the heading "Pathetic opposition" it stated:
Scottish Labour MPs win no plaudits for their opposition to the Bill.
The problem for the Labour Party is that it has chosen to take the coward's approach on the question of rates.
It wants to change the system but does not know what to replace it with.
It suits their political purposes to have the rates loaded unfairly in favour of their own supporters.
The report concluded:
But the Labour opposition to the Bill has been pathetic.
The party which glories and delights in its overwhelming lead in the Scottish opinion polls should perform better on such crucial issues.
If the debate in Committee has been arid, who is responsible for that aridity?
I want to refer to yet another Left-wing journal which has chosen to comment on the Committee's proceedings and the attitude of the Labour party. This a magazine entitled Radical Scotland—not exactly the most avid supporter of Conservative policy. In its latest issue, the journal states:
Labour…have been loud in their condemnation of the Tory proposals, but have not come forward with any positive proposals themselves for any change, even minor, to local

government funding. (Can it really be perfect?) They thereby lay themselves open to Tory jibes of 'defending the status quo', and appearing to become the party of reaction.
The report continues by claiming—this is perhaps the gem of them all—
It seems that a recent move within Labour's ranks for positive proposals was knocked hack (from the top) on the grounds that 'if we produce anything, it will just get attacked'.
I like to be a fair man on these occasions. I know perfectly well that it would be unreasonable for me to expect the Opposition or the country to accept the Conservative party's views of the Labour party's performance. However, when the Daily Record, the Glasgow Evening Times and Radical Scotland have reported in such unequivocal terms, we are entitled to say that the Labour party has not provided any opposition to the Bill because it does not know how to do so.
I recollect that on Second Reading, two delegations came to the House to lobby Members. One was from the Federation of Scottish Ratepayers. That delegation came to lobby in favour of the Bill and its members paid their own fares down. The other delegation came from the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities, which has the appearance of a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Labour party. It appeared then and today and we are entitled to assume, unless there is evidence to the contrary, that they had their fares paid by Scottish ratepayers.

Mr. Dewar: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that COSLA's composition is the result of the decision of the Scottish electorate, and that he has led his party to the worst set of local election results in political history?

Mr. Rifkind: No, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues failed to answer the correct point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). In its approach to the Bill, COSLA has sought to establish a private relationship with the Labour party and with Opposition parties. Instead of seeing its obligation to service the needs of all Members of Parliament, it has sought to be exclusive in the way that I have described.
The Bill is a radical and reforming measure, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was kind enough to admit by quoting my earlier comments. He suggested that it was unacceptable because it resulted in everyone having to contribute to the costs of local government. He did not explain, what he should have realised, that all pay towards the costs of central Government. Everyone pays income tax or indirect taxes or, at the very least, VAT and other forms of indirect taxation. However, a substantial proportion of the adult population do not pay a penny towards the costs of local authorities. The hon. Member for East Lothian, a spokesman for the Labour party, did not seem to be aware that in Scotland about 750,000 Scottish adults who are not spouses or unemployed, the vast majority of whom are earning and pay income tax to central Government, do not under the present system pay a penny in contributions to local government.
The hon. Member for East Lothian and his colleagues must ask why they are defending a system which means that such people, many of whom earn more than old-age pensioners, do not pay a penny towards the rates raised by local authorities, while pensioners and others on low incomes who happen to be householders sometimes make substantial contributions.
The Labour party was correct to rule out local income tax, but by doing so it has emphasised what we have emphasised—that the only alternative to a discredited rating system is the community charge as proposed in the Bill. I have not the slightest doubt that, although it is impossible to achieve a perfect system of taxation, a system based on accountability, on the assumption that all adults who benefit from local authority services should make a contribution to the cost of those services, and which takes into account the ability to pay by a system which will provide up to 80 per cent. rebates for those who require it, should commend itself to the House. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Question put:-

The House divided: Ayes, 287 Noes 187.

Division No. 89]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Coombs, Simon


Aitken, Jonathan
Cope, John


Amess, David
Cormack, Patrick


Ancram, Michael
Corrie, John


Arnold, Tom
Couchman, James


Ashby, David
Cranborne, Viscount


Aspinwall, Jack
Critchley, Julian


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Crouch, David


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dicks, Terry


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dorrell, Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dover, Den


Bellingham, Henry
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Bendall, Vivian
Dunn, Robert


Benyon, William
Dykes, Hugh


Bevan, David Gilroy
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Eggar, Tim


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Evennett, David


Blackburn, John
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Body, Sir Richard
Fallon, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Farr, Sir John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Favell, Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fletcher, Sir Alexander


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Forman, Nigel


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bright, Graham
Forth, Eric


Brinton, Tim
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fox, Sir Marcus


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Gale, Roger


Browne, John
Galley, Roy


Bruinvels, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Budgen, Nick
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bulmer, Esmond
Gorst, John


Burt, Alistair
Gower, Sir Raymond


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Grant, Sir Anthony


Butterfill, John
Greenway, Harry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Carttiss, Michael
Ground, Patrick


Cash, William
Grylls, Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hanley, Jeremy


Chapman, Sydney
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Chope, Christopher
Haselhurst, Alan


Churchill, W. S.
Hayes, J.


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heddle, John


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Henderson, Barry


Cockeram, Eric
Hickmet, Richard


Colvin. Michael
Hicks, Robert





Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hill, James
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Hind, Kenneth
Pattie, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Hirst, Michael
Pawsey, James


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Holt, Richard
Pollock, Alexander


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Portillo, Michael


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Powley, John


Hunter, Andrew
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jackson, Robert
Price, Sir David


Jessel, Toby
Proctor, K. Harvey


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Raffan, Keith


Key, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Renton, Tim


Knowles, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Knox, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Latham, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lawler, Geoffrey
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lawrence, Ivan
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rost, Peter


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rowe, Andrew


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ryder, Richard


Lester, Jim
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lightbown, David
St, John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lilley, Peter
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Scott, Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lyell, Nicholas
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sims, Roger


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maclean, David John
Speed, Keith


McLoughlin, Patrick
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Spencer, Derek


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, John
Squire, Robin


Malins, Humfrey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Malone, Gerald
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Maples, John
Steen, Anthony


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Marlow, Antony
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mather, Sir Carol
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Merchant, Piers
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moate, Roger
Terlezki, Stefan


Monro, Sir Hector
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Mudd, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Murphy, Christopher
Thurnham, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Needham, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Michael
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Newton, Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Norris, Steven
Walden, George


Onslow, Cranley
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wall, Sir Patrick


Ottaway, Richard
Waller, Gary


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Walters, Dennis


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Ward, John






Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Wolfson, Mark


Warren, Kenneth
Wood, Timothy


Watson, John
Woodcock, Michael


Watts, John
Yeo, Tim


Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wheeler, John



Whitney, Raymond
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Francis Maude and


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Tony Durant.


Winterton, Nicholas





NOES


Abse, Leo
Foulkes, George


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Anderson, Donald
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Garrett, W. E.


Ashton, Joe
George, Bruce


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Godman, Dr Norman


Barron, Kevin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Gould, Bryan


Beith, A. J.
Gourlay, Harry


Bell, Stuart
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hardy, Peter


Bidwell, Sydney
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Blair, Anthony
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Haynes, Frank


Boyes, Roland
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Home Robertson, John


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hoyle, Douglas


Bruce, Malcolm
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Janner, Hon Greville


Campbell-Savours, Dale
John, Brynmor


Canavan, Dennis
Johnston, Sir Russell


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cartwright, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kennedy, Charles


Clarke, Thomas
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Clay, Robert
Kirkwood, Archy


Clelland, David Gordon
Lambie, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lamond, James


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Leadbitter, Ted


Cohen, Harry
Leighton, Ronald


Coleman, Donald
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Conlan, Bernard
Litherland, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Livsey, Richard


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Loyden, Edward


Corbett, Robin
McCartney, Hugh


Corbyn, Jeremy
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Craigen, J. M.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregot


Crowther, Stan
Maclennan, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McNamara, Kevin


Cunningham, Dr John
McTaggart, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Madden, Max


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Mallon, Seamus


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Marek, Dr John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dewar, Donald
Martin, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Maxton, John


Dormand, Jack
Maynard, Miss Joan


Douglas, Dick
Meacher, Michael


Dubs, Alfred
Meadowcroft, Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Michie, William


Eastham, Ken
Mikardo, Ian


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fatchett, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fisher, Mark
Nellist, David


Flannery, Martin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Brien, William


Forrester, John
O'Neill, Martin


Foster, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley





Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F bury)


Park, George
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Parry, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Patchett, Terry
Snape, Peter


Pavitt, Laurie
Soley, Clive


Pike, Peter
Spearing, Nigel


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Radice, Giles
Strang, Gavin


Redmond, Martin
Straw, Jack


Richardson, Ms Jo
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Robertson, George
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Tinn, James


Rogers, Allan
Wainwright, R.


Rooker, J. W.
Wallace, James


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wareing, Robert


Rowlands, Ted
Welsh, Michael


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Sheerman, Barry
Wilson, Gordon


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Winnick, David


Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)



Short, Mrs B.(W'hampt'n NE)
Tellers for the Noes:


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Mr. John McWilliam and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Tony Lloyd.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1.—(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 19th February 1987.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 19th February may continue until Ten o'clock, whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 20th February.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall he brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on first allotted day

7.—(1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others);

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any Amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that Amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
 (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20

(Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order

"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed to on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;

"the Bill" means the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill;

"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;

"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Petroleum Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

GRANTS FOR ABANDONMENT PROGRAMMES

"The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Treasury, make grants to a person or persons who have submitted a programme under section 1 and which has been approved or revised under sections 4 and 6 for the purposes of implementing the programme.'.—[Mr. Rowlands.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In Committee, we were reminded of just how much money in tax revenue has been obtained from the North sea since 1979. It was a staggering £352·4 billion, obtained by way of direct taxes from North sea oil, the largest fiscal windfall in modern British history—and the Government have been the beneficiaries of it.
At the same time we have become increasingly aware that a Government in the mid-1990s will begin to face the problem of repaying a significant proportion of those revenues as part and parcel of relief against the cost of abandonment. It is a sobering thought that although Governments have enjoyed this enormous fiscal windfall, the Government of the mid-1990s will not only have less revenue from the North sea—because production will have declined by at least 1 million barrels a day and because of the probable lower average oil price—but, as the abandonment programme gets under way and the costs begin to come in, it is likely that the Government will have to pay a very large proportion, possibly up to 85 per cent., of the cost of abandonment. Therefore, we are not discussing matters of marginal significance; we are talking about very considerable items of expenditure and tax relief at a time when the revenues which created the development and which have been enjoyed by this Government will be declining both in real terms and in terms of offsetting the cost of abandonment by means of tax relief.
I make no apology, therefore, for endeavouring by means of this new clause to open up debate about the fiscal arrangements that will prevail and to put forward the suggestion that we consider a grant structure as much as a tax relief system. As the Minister will recall, we considered whether the Government, even at this stage, knowing what lies ahead, should not hypothecate in some form or other existing revenue to cover future costs. After all, the Government will urge the oil industry to prepare for this eventuality in its accounting and even to put money into trust funds of some kind in advance of abandonment programmes. The Government, however, have not done this, and I do not suppose that they will hypothecate any percentage of current oil revenues from the North sea to cover the costs that a future Government must face.
We could not, although we wanted to, put down an amendment to that effect because it was inhibited by the scope of the financial resolution, so we decided to raise the issue and open up for debate methods of meeting these enormous costs in the coming decade, costs that will fall on the Government and taxpayer more than on the industry itself.
The reason why we should look at a grant system instead of tax relief is that the work of Professor Kemp showed that the tax relief system could be capricious. Abandonment costs in different fields and installations could attract tax relief of varying amounts, from 35 per cent. to 85 per cent. Such a capricious and unpredictable incidence of relief could bring confusion to the development of abandonment programmes. We identified some of the problems in Committee, and we return to the argument now in a rather different form by proposing in this new clause that the Secretary of State should have power to make grants rather than give tax relief.
One of the most valuable things that the Minister can do when he replies is to clarify the tax position. It would be very useful for everyone, particularly those outside the House, to have a clear statement from the Minister about the tax position. As I understand it, there would be three forms of tax relief on abandonment: against corporation tax, in relation to petroleum revenue tax, and in relation to royalty payments. When he replies, will the Minister make it absolutely clear what these reliefs are and what the existing position is? Could the whole of any abandonment cost be offset against PRT? Over what period could these costs be set against the various taxes? From the analysis carried out by Professor Kemp and from the informal discussions that other hon. Members and I have had with people in the oil industry, we know that under existing rules a company may, over the life of a field, pay PRT at an average rate of, say, 53 per cent., but receive little or no PRT relief on abandonment because of the incidence of the oil allowances. It is particularly in relation to PRT that I hope the Minister will help the House in clarifying the position.
Given the possibility that tax relief can be capricious and unpredictable and can vary widely, we believe that there is a case for considering a grant system as a better alternative for covering the cost of abandonment. The Minister and his Department have done some work on this and the Norwegians went into this in considerable detail. I have a considered report by the Norwegian Ministry of Finance and Customs on the whole question of the law regarding allocation of costs of removal of installation and tax. After the issue had been considered at some length, the report, on page 30, concluded:
To utilise the tax system as a mechanism to allocate the removal costs between the public and the oil companies is unnecessarily complicated. Such a procedure would weaken the financial control with the removal, hereunder the cost-consciousness of the companies".
It decided that it would be far better to introduce some form of grant structure than to meet the cost by way of relief from taxation already paid.
The Norwegian system is that the companies would create a separate account for a removal project. The cost would then be clearly identified and the State would pay its share as the expenses were incurred during the course of the abandonment programme. The idea is to have a grant relating to the overall payment of tax made by a company on a particular field.
These are interesting and serious proposals. All that we are proposing in new clause 1 is to put into place the opportunity and power for the Secretary of State to do this. None of us knows how it will work out. We cannot be sure how large abandonment costs will be—at their gross it is estimated that they could be as high as £6 billion—but we assume that, with some form of partial


removal, we are talking of a total of £3 billion to £4 billion. If the State has to pay back 85 per cent. in tax relief in the mid-1990s, at a time of declining oil revenues, there is a strong case for considering the alternative method of covering the costs. That is the conclusion of the Norwegians, having studied the matter carefully. We should not close the door on that option. That is why we have proposed new clause 1.
When we have determined the legislative framework for abandonment programmes, the next and most urgent task will be to create the financial framework for those programmes. Therefore, I ask the Minister to make a clear statement on the existing tax position by indicating what reliefs are available and the period over which they can offset the cost of abandonment. Does the Minister believe, as everyone outside does, that the tax relief system has a capricious character which could lead to considerable variations in the payment of tax relief on abandonment costs? Will the Minister at least consider the option of a grant structure if the system of tax relief is complicated and in some cases inequitable?
Before the Norwegians made their law, they consulted the major oil companies operating in the Norwegian North sea. Some of those companies also operate in our North sea. The oil companies expressed a preference for a grant structure. There are divided views in the oil industry. Until they know the tax position, they cannot make a decision. All we propose in new clause 1 is to give power to the Secretary of State to establish a grant system. We are saying not that such a system should be implemented, but that it is a reasonable option. It is in that light that we put forward new clause 1.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for proposing the new clause because it raises an important issue. Although we touched on it in Committee it is helpful and relevant to return to it because it is, I understand, still under discussion in the industry as a possible means of handling the financial aspects of abandonment. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the matter has also been discussed in Norway, although I do not think that anything has yet been approved by the Norwegian parliament, the Storting, as the route to be followed.
As I said in Committee, the way in which the Government eventually decide to pay their share of abandonment costs still needs further consideration. That will include consideration of the possibility of the non-fiscal, grant-aided approach that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I am aware that some people in the industry have expressed a preference for that approach, although I believe that the United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association is still considering whether to make a formal request to the Government that this be considered.
As I told the House on Second Reading, the Bill contains provisions which give an enabling power to amend royalties procedures so that abandonment costs may be carried back and set off against royalties paid earlier. This enabling power will be used only if the Government decide that the existing fiscal system of relief for abandonment costs should be maintained, possibly with some technical amendments. Against that background, I understand why the hon. Gentleman asks whether the other route might be considered as well.
The Government have not come to a final view, but if we go down the grants route I do not believe that it is necessary to provide the power now, so not providing the power in no way prejudices consideration of the non-fiscal route. The House should reflect that under neither route is it envisaged that very much in the way of grant or tax and royalty relief will need to be given for a number of years, although I acknowledge that when abandonment happens considerable sums of money may be involved. It is possible that one or two abandonments will take place earlier but the great bulk of abandonment is likely to be later in the next decade, possibly towards the end of the century and later.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Can the Minister tell us where the platforms are situated which are likely to face removal earlier?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is impossible to be specific because no company has yet come forward with proposals for abandonment. Of course, companies are not required to do so. One of the things that has marked the North sea, as we discussed in Committee, is the fact that most of the fields have so far performed better than was envisaged. That has meant that their life has been longer than expected. Speculation on when platforms are likely to be removed is like speculation on the price of oil—one is as likely to be wrong as right, so it is not speculation that I wish to undertake.
The point I was making is that this is some time away, so if a grant system were to be adopted it would be a considerable time before a significant number of payments had to be made. In those circumstances, it would be necessary to make legislative provision, which would have to be put before parliament in due course. Of course, we already have fiscal arrangements because the costs can be put against the taxes which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The general arrangements are in place, although detailed arrangements would have to be discussed between the industry and the Inland Revenue. No doubt consultation would take place. Ultimately, it would be the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to decide on the changes necessary to take full account of the details and the special circumstances that may arise.
We have in place tax arrangements which would allow the fiscal route to be followed. With that route, the need to repay royalties could involve adjusting royalty assessments for some years prior to abandonment. As we have those tax facilities in place, we decided that it was wise to use the opportunity of the Bill to make the enabling power applicable to such assessments from an early date as it is obviouslynot desirable retrospectively to amend the licence model clauses under which the assessments are made.
If I recollect correctly, in Committee the hon. Gentleman said that the carry-back power in the Bill might not go far enough. I said that in such cases, which would probably be isolated cases, if further carry back were necessary it could be dealt with by amendments to the individual licences. That illustrates that if we are to follow the fiscal route now in place we must legislate now. If, after further consultation with the industry, we decide to go down the route suggested in the new clause, there is not the same urgency to legislate now, although power would have to be taken at the appropriate time in order to be able to follow that route.

Mr. Rowlands: The right hon. Gentleman has confined his remarks to royalty payments and repayments for abandonment costs. Will he say something about PRT? Royalty payments bring in about £2 billion per year from the North sea, but PRT brings in about £6 billion, so the problems about PRT will concern us most.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is correct. There is no doubt that the bulk of abandonment costs would be against PRT. If changes have to be made to the rules, the ability to make those changes already exists, but we do not have the necessary powers in relation to royalties. That is the reason for the Bill.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. We have chosen this Bill to legislate in a specific way and I suppose that that shows that to some extent this is the preferred route to allow for abandonment costs. As I said earlier, I emphasise that no final decision has been taken and the route that the hon. Gentleman suggests is still possible. It is being considered by the industry and if the industry wishes to argue a case my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I will consult with the industry. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman seeks one route or the other. He is simply saying that this is an alternative route which might be used. Nothing in the Bill would prejudice the use of that route, and it does not require legislation at a later stage. Given that clarification, I do not think that the new clause should be pressed.

Mr. Rowlands: I am half comforted by what the Minister has said. It is at least clear that he has an open mind about the notion that we might pursue a resolution of the problem of abandonment costs by grant rather than by tax relief. He has said that he will keep the option open. I am a little less comforted by his account of the system and the tax position. We need much better and more urgent clarification of the tax position than he has given us. We also need that information earlier than the date he has suggested.
I got the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was saying that things could be sorted out in due course. The fiscal framework within which the abandonment programmes will be prepared is closely related to the important amendments to clause 2 and the matters of liability and responsibility. If the Minister feels that there is an urgent need for a legislative framework to prepare and bring forward abandonment programmes, there is an equal and similar urgency about resolving the fiscal framework within which these programmes will be prepared.
We support the idea of using joint operating agreements or similar agreements to establish proper liability and responsibility for abandonment programmes along the lines of the amendments that we will debate later. Many companies will negotiate, often with their smaller partners. In the BP Forties field there is a string of small interests on some of the licences and there could be negotiations on the joint operating agreements. Every company will say that it accepts the responsibility and the liability but the companies will want to know the fiscal position. Some of the difficulties in renegotiating and reorganising the joint operating agreements or similar agreements to establish liability and responsibility for

abandonment programmes, will be affected by the lack of conclusion and uncertainty and doubts about the fiscal position.
The fiscal problems will come earlier rather than later. We know that some companies and some groups will consider whether or not to establish a trust fund to cover now their portion of the future cost of abandonment. Will that trust fund money be eligible for tax relief? That issue is bound to arise fairly soon, as will the nature and character of tax relief. I am grateful that we have taken action to cover the royalty relief provisions. We accept that that is an important change and the Minister will know that we have not opposed that provision, but have sought to clarify it. He will be asked about whether it is effective and comprehensive enough.
The real doubts and difficulties will arise over PRT. I said that this is the largest source of revenue from the North sea. With APRT, it is running at over £6 billion a year. That does not include the extra slab of enforced loans. It is a substantial part of the revenue from the North sea. One wicked thought that crossed my mind and might have crossed the minds of other hon. Members is that in the mid-1990s, as PRT revenues decline, it could be cheaper for the Treasury to abolish PRT rather than accept the liability of repaying it to cover abandonment costs. PRT has a direct bearing on production and profitability. In the mid-1990s, the repayments could come close to wiping out the revenue. A Chancellor stuck for cash will be tempted to abolish PRT when it is declining, at the very time when relief for abandonment costs would be needed.
I hope we have made the case to the Minister that these issues are not for the long term. They will be relatively immediate issues for companies to think about and resolve as they prepare their abandonment programmes and renegotiate and revise their joint operating agreements or establish similar agreements for responsibility and liability for abandonment programmes. As I said, I am half comforted by the Minister's comment that he has an open mind on these matters. I urge him to take a much more urgent look at the whole situation with the Inland Revenue and his Treasury colleagues, because we will need a fiscal framework just as much as we need a legislative one. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

PERSONS WHO MUST SUBMIT PROGRAMMES

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 25, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
`(b) a person who is a concession owner in relation to the installation for the purposes of that Act insofar as they relate to the relevant activities or who was a concession owner for those purposes when a relevant activity was last carried on from, by means of or on the installation;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 2, line 25 leave out paragraphs (b) to (d) and insert—
(b) a person outside paragraph (a) who is a party to a joint operating agreement or similar agreement;
(c) a person outside paragraphs (a) and (b) who owns any interest in the installation otherwise than as a security for a loan;


(d) a company which is outside paragraphs (a) to (c) but is associated with a company within any of those paragraphs.'.
Government amendment No. 3.
Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—
'(2) In subsection (1), "relevant activities" means activities within paragraphs (a) and (c) (but not insofar as paragraph (c) refers to paragraph (b) of section 12(2) of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971.'.
Government amendment No. 5.
Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 38, leave out paragraph (b) and (c).
Government amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 16 and 17.

Mr. Proctor: Before I speak to my amendments, I shall make some general observations as my amendments have been grouped with Government amendments.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend coming forward with these amendments. In Committee we had long, detailed discussions about recasting clause 2 and the consequential clauses. My right hon. Friend said that he had taken heed of our thoughts and would consider them. I am aware that constructive talks took place and continue to take place between my right hon. Friend, officials in his Department and the industry, whose interests are represented by UKOOA. Those deliberations have been fruitful and have produced the Government amendments, for which I and the industry are grateful.
However, having said that, I am tempted to introduce a note of caution and refer back to the amendments I have tabled. There are one or two matters of concern where the industry and, perhaps, hon. Members would like my right hon. Friend to go even further. My amendments refer to clause 2(1)(b), which permits the giving of notices requiring submission to an abandonment programme for an offshore installation of
a person who is a concession owner in relation to the installation for the purposes of that Act"—
the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971—
or who was a concession owner for those purposes when an activity within Section 12(2) of that Act was last carried on from, by means of or on the installation;".
Anyone following the argument so far will realise that it is rather technical and complicated. I understand that the industry believe that the wide definition of "concession owner" will cause injustice because of its application to installations that serve other fields—for example, those installations that act as gathering centres collecting production from a number of local fields for transmission by a large capacity pipeline to shore.
The definition of concession owner in relation to any installation is contained in section 12(2) of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971 as amended by the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982. I will not read those definitions to the House now.
In Committee on 13 January, my right hon. Friend explained what he meant by the term "concession owner", when he said:
With regard to off-shore installations, the concession owners will be the holders of the relevant petroleum production licences. The term concession owner is used in the Bill, and that is why the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney raised his question. I believe that he wanted to know what the antecedents were for its use. It is used to keep continuity with the offshore safety regime established in the Mineral Working (Offshore Installations) Act 1971, by

reference to which offshore installations are defined in clause 16(1). I hope that that makes it absolutely clear."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 13 January 1987; c. 220.]
With due respect to my right hon. Friend, the industry does not believe that that has made the position absolutely clear. It is not clear to the industry which are the relevant licences, whose holders will be liable for abandonment of an installation. Does my right hon. Friend mean the production licence holders in whose area the installation is situated?
The industry's concern is best demonstrated by the example—hon. Members may have been given it in a briefing— of the Ninian central platform. It is a gathering centre for production from three fields as well as transmitting its produce down the main oil line that runs from the Ninian central platform to Sullom Voe. One such field is Heather, whose platform is connected by a lateral pipeline to the Ninian central platform. That lateral pipeline connects with a riser and top deck equipment on the Ninian central platform, which in turn joins the end of the main oil line on the platform.
7.45 pm
The Heather partners have no interest in the Ninian central platform or in Ninian production. Consequently, in all fairness, the industry believes that they should not be liable for the abandonment of the Ninian central platform. The industry would like my right hon. Friend to state whether the Heather partners are concession owners in relation to the Ninian central platform and, if so, whether they are consequently liable for its abandonment.
In materially applying the definition in section 12(2) of the 1971 Act to the facts, we arrive at the following formula:
A person who has the right to exploit or explore mineral resources in the licensed area including the Heather field (Block 2/5)…shall be a concession owner for the purposes of this Act in relation to the Ninian Central Platform at any time if, at that time, there is carried on from, by means of or on the Ninian Central Platform any of the following activities, namely—
(b) the conveyance in that area (Block 2/5) by means of a pipe or system of pipes, or minerals gotten (Heather production)…in the exercise of that right (the Heather licence).
Conveyance means getting from point A to point B. The Heather production is conveyed through a system of pipes from the Heather platform via the Ninian central platform to Sullom Voe. That system of pipes crosses, and is supported by, the Ninian central platform. Similarly, the top deck equipment involved is located on the Ninian central platform. Without that platform, conveyance could not take place in exactly the same manner. The industry therefore considers that it cannot exclude the conclusion that the conveyance of Heather production in the Heather licence area, by means of a system of pipes crossing Ninian central platform, is an activity carried out through that platform. Consequently. the industry believes that Heather partners may be liable for that platform's abandonment.
The industry understands that Government lawyers take a different view from the lawyers that the industry have consulted. The Government lawyers consider—when current facts are applied—that only the holders of the production licences covering the Ninian field would be within the definition of concession owners in relation to the Ninian central platform.
I have demonstrated that that interpretation is, at the very least, open to question and doubt. It will be no protection in legal proceedings because, as my right hon. Friend will be aware, judges are not allowed to consider


our deliberations, or the correspondence between the Government's lawyers and lawyers for the oil companies or UKOOA.
The basis on which the industry is supporting the Government's amendments to the Bill relates to clause 3 and amendment No. 9 to it, which gives relief from lifting the corporate veil to make unrelated and associated companies liable for abandonment, provided that adequate arrangements have been made by persons within paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of clause 2(1) to ensure that a satisfactory abandonment programme is carried out. As the extent of persons within paragraph (b) is uncertain, that relief could easily be lost to the industry.
That and the basic inequity of making unrelated fields liable for abandonment of an installation in which they have no interest seems too high a price to pay for continuity with the offshore safety regime. Continuity is a matter of tidy legislative housekeeping not necessity.
Clearly, there is a dispute on this matter between the Department's lawyers and the industry's lawyers as to the meaning of the term "concession owners". Scope should not be left for lawyers to disagree on that matter, because inevitably that will lead to expense and ultimately to grievance. I am not arguing about who is right and who is wrong. Both sides have consulted very sophisticated and, presumably, expensive lawyers, and there is disagreement. The matter is demonstrably unclear and must be resolved. Therefore, I urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider the matter. It has been considered in Committee, but I urge my right hon. Friend to consider it again and to look at it with the same flexibility and courtesy that were the hallmarks by which he conducted the proceedings in Committee.

Mr. Rowlands: I am not quite sure of the best way to proceed with the amendments. I was waiting for the Minister to explain them, or to come in first. However, perhaps it would be convenient if I intervened at this stage. We should like the right to pursue these matters again after the Minister has introduced his amendments.
It is a pity that we are taking these in one sweep, because two separate issues are contained in this clutch of amendments. One set deals with clause 2 which relates to pipelines, and the other with installations. In Committee we realised increasingly that the two sets of amendments had to be looked at separately because they presented separate problems and arguments. Therefore, we are having to consider an enormous collection of amendments that deal with pipelines and installations. I shall have an initial shot, but I should like the right to return to the battle when we have heard the Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall, of course, do my best to accommodate the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he realises that we are on Report and not in Committee.

Mr. Rowlands: I was trying to suggest that the House will be put in some difficulty because of this large group of amendments on such wide and separate issues, including several significant changes that the Government introduced to their own Bill as a result of our discussions in Committee. We need to digest those changes, and the Minister needs to explain them to us.
To avoid any doubt— we said it enough times in Committee—we have a common objective in devising a proper clause 2. That is to make sure that that liability is

properly placed, the responsibility is clearly identified, and the financial consequences of abandonment are guaranteed. Those basic principles and objectives are shared by all hon. Members. There is no difference of opinion about the objective that we seek to achieve in clause 2. We want the liability clearly and properly placed upon those who should be liable and we want the responsibility for preparing, developing and implementing the abandonment programmes clearly identified. Obviously, we need financial arrangements to guarantee that the state does not pick up more of the tab than it should.
Such an objective requires that there should be no doubt or confusion about the law. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) made that point. We have not signed his amendment because, as he will notice, we are trying to do it differently, by omitting the offending subparagraph about concession owners. However, we have no difficulty in supporting his amendment and are willing to join him in pressing it.
We should ensure that there is absolutely no doubt abour our common objective, which must not leave any confusion or doubt in legislation or in the law. It is because there is doubt and, as the hon. Gentleman said, because there is a genuine difference of legal opinion about the paragraph that he and we are seeking to amend, that we are expressing concern and anxiety at this late stage.
As we know, when faced with the problem of trying to place the responsibility and to identify those upon whom to serve the notices under clause 2, the Government chose a catch-all method. It smacked of the Inland Revenue which, when in doubt, serves a notice upon anybody who is walking past to make sure that it does not miss anybody. It tries to catch anybody and anyone in the hope of eventually catching those it wants to catch. That solution caused considerable worry and concern to the industry and also to hon. Members in Committee.
Quite properly, after continuous consultation in Committee, the Minister announced that he intended to recast parts of clause 2 to meet the legitimate worries, concerns and objections. The amendments tabled by the Minister today go a long way to fulfilling his commitments.
I know that it might seem rather churlish of us to pursue that point again, but it is essential. The Minister decided—we supported the principle—that instead of serving notices on almost everybody under the wide and sweeping powers of clause 2, notices should initially be served on the operators, on those who are named on the licence or on those in partnership in a joint operating agreement. As the Minister knows, we not only support that proposition, but advocated it from the first day of the Committee stage. I said that the simplest and least confusing way would be to place the responsibility and liability upon those who would be uniquely qualified to deal with those problems—the operators and the co-licensees involved with the installations. We felt that that was where the burden of notice-serving should go.
The Minister substantially met that point, by his amendment to clause 2 and, more significantly, by amending clause 3. That showed that he would not serve notices on all possible subsidiary interested parties until the operator and the co-licensees had had the fullest opportunity, within a decent time scale, to establish proper collective liability, to the Minister's satisfaction. Why spoil


that important recasting of this part of the Bill by clinging to that part of the clause, which has caused, and which continues to cause, such genuine confusion?
As I have said, we have a common objective. An essential aspect is to avoid further confusion or doubt about where the liability or responsibility should rest. However, by clinging to the subsection, the reference to "concession owner" is still causing confusion and concern, despite the attempts of the Minister and his Department to persuade the industry that it does not mean what it says.
Therefore, there is no reason or case. We wait, with considerable interest, for the Minister to identify exactly who will be caught by the term "concession owner". So far, we all agree that notices should be served first and foremost on operators. We believe that notices should be served on those parties who form, belong to or are part of a joint operating agreement on any installation. We have accepted that there should also be an opportunity to serve notices at a later date, if need be, upon other persons who have an interest, but who do not have a secured loan—in other words, not a bank. We accept that, albeit reluctantly, as will be clear when we debate amendments Nos. 7 and 8. We have even accepted the principle of serving notices on associated companies, thereby piercing the so-called corporate veil. We even support the Government to that extent.
Who, then, are we talking about, other than those categories who are at present in the North sea? Can anyone name an installation that is not covered by any one of those definitions? We have hunted high and low for exceptions. Where are they? All we have come up with are the curious arrangements on the Ekofisk borderline which are the subject of Orders in Council under the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981. I have the block numbers with me and should be grateful if the Minister will tell us whether this is what he is after. There are midline stations in block 36/22 and block 37/4 and there is a gas compressor station in block 14. Some of those are covered by Orders in Council.
8 pm
The problem is that no joint operative agreements are in force for those installations, nor are they under any operator. Surely they are covered by the third category, of a person with an interest other than in a secured loan. People own them and their ownership is not difficult to identify. They have been the subject of Orders in Council and they would be covered under the provision of a person with an interest. Are these the unique installations that the Minister is trying to cover in his term "concession owner'"?
We cover operators and everybody who is party to an installation through a joint operating agreement or something similar. If that does not catch everybody, we cover people with an interest in any installation, other than one based on a secured loan, and associated companies. So we cover all the possibilities of those with an interest in North sea oil installations. If the Minister has these three extraordinary cases in mind, surely they too are covered by the broad definition of a person other than an operator or a co-licensee who has an interest in an installation. Therefore, those exceptional cases, which are covered by Orders in Council, would be covered by that

provision. What in the name of heaven is the phrase "concession owner" doing in the clause? For what installation is it necessary to have that provision?
I do not wish to repeat the case made by the hon. Member for Billericay and his illustration of the connection between the Heather and Ninian central platforms. Such doubts have been represented to us all. I am not a voice for the industry—far from it; the last thing it would want is to identify with many of my views—but I have had to listen to a sensible case made by sensible people who know the score and are obviously worried about the consequence of leaving those words in the Bill without proper definition.
On the first batch of amendments— the Government's amendments relating to installations, the amendment of the hon. Member for Billericay and our amendments—I hope that the Minister will make this final concession and ensure that not an ounce of doubt is left in anybody's mind about responsibility and liability and the persons on whom notices will be served. Otherwise, the Minister will spoil the very thing that all of us have sought to do in recasting clause 2.
Now I must turn to the second half of the batch of amendments, dealing with pipelines. In Committee, pipelines loomed larger and larger during our discussions. I do not know how pipelines loom, although installations loom, but I am speaking metaphorically. Perhaps it would be better to say that we began to follow the pipelines issue increasingly carefully. We realised, and even the Minister admitted, that genuine new issues were arising about programmes to deal with abandoned pipelines.
It is difficult to find out where responsibility lies. Under the Bill, in the incredible gas-gathering structure of the North sea, where one set of pipelines was linked to another, liability would run with that link. A person who did not own the pipeline in question but whose pipeline was linked to it could suddenly be liable for the abandonment of that other person's pipeline. The Minister recognised that, and towards the end of our proceedings identified the route that he intended to take. That was to take advantage of the little-used section 33 of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 to serve designation orders and to define the ownership of the pipeline.
We thought that was fine. Applying the test for the Bill—that it leaves no confusion or doubt—we thought that that was marvellous and that, through the designation orders, we would identify the ownership of the pipeline clearly. In that way everyone would know what they were liable for and for which pipelines they were responsible. I thought that was an excellent solution. But again, the Minister has inserted a belt and braces provision and has thrown another category in on top of that, instead of sticking to a clear, simple, well defined basis.
Designation orders would establish the ownership of pipelines in the North sea. The provision in section 33 allows for consultation with the industries, so agreement could be reached on who owns a pipeline. But then on top of that we have another subsection to cover a person outside paragraph (a) who owns any interest in the whole of the pipeline other than as security for a loan.
Who is that? If, under the 1975 Act, we are to designate the ownership of the pipeline system in the North sea, which other people will have an interest? We shall have established the interest through the designation process.
Who else could be caught under this provision, having defined the whole ownership of the pipeline system? Who else could possibly be included in that category?
Rather than a simple, clear, well-defined identification of liability, there will again be doubt and anxiety about whether other people can become liable for pipelines in which they have a marginal or nominal interest, to say the least. That has been the problem from the start with the construction of clause 2. We have done a great deal to change it and we welcome the Government's amendments, because they meet many of the points raised by us in Committee. Our doubts and anxieties were shared by the Minister—we make no party point about this—but he has still left confusion and doubt. Otherwise we would not have received the representations that we have which have led to our amendments.
I hope that tonight the Minister will go a step further and amend this provision on installations. If not, I hope he will tell us exactly whom he is trying to catch by the concession owner provisions, and that he will clarify the position on pipelines.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am happy to respond to the debate. As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, we share a common objective. Indeed, I share also the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) about what we are trying to achieve. The only difference that may be between us on this matter is whether I shall achieve what my hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman and I seek to achieve and, indeed, whether I shall go too far. I certainly welcome the opportunity to try to clarify the position.
I shall deal first with the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay. That deals with a more limited matter. None the less, it is important to the industry within the much wider-ranging changes that I propose in the amendments that I hope to have the opportunity to move formally at a later stage. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend and the House on this matter. Our objectives are identical. I do not have any difference with him or any other hon. Member about what we are trying to achieve.
My hon. Friend asked me whether what he and I are trying to achieve is absolutely clear in legal terms. I hope that I shall be able to reassure him on that matter. From discussions in Committee and subsequent discussions with representatives of the oil companies and with my legal advisers, I certainly believe that the position is absolutely clear in the Bill as drafted.
The effect of the term "concession owner" is critical to the Bill. I reiterate what my hon. Friend has said. It has the same meaning as section 12(2) of the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971, as amended by the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982. For the purposes of the 1971 Act, to be a concession owner in relation to an offshore installation a person must have the right to exploit or explore mineral resources or store and recover gas in an area, and one or more qualifying activities must be carried on from, by means of or on the installation. The qualifying activities are, in summary, the exploration or exploitation of mineral resources or the storage or recovery of gas, the conveyance of minerals or gas and the provision of accommodation. I have spelt that out in some detail because the definition is complicated.
I ask my hon. Friend whether he has appreciated the precise application. To illustrate that point, I shall refer to

the precise example that he gave and the type of application that he thought led to the confusion. The example that my hon. Friend gave related to the Ninian central platform. As he correctly described, it serves as a gathering centre for production from three fields—Heather, Magnus and North Alwyn, as well as its own. The oil is gathered there for subsequent transmission down a pipeline to Sullom Voe. These four fields—this is an important point— are in different licensed areas. My hon. Friend has suggested that the licensees of the Heather field, for example, could be concession owners in relation to the Ninian central platform because the production from Heather is conveyed through a system of pipes through the Ninian central platform to the shore.
8.15 pm
I must refer closely to the words of section 12(2)(b) of the definition in the 1971 Act, as amended by the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982, which my hon. Friend and I mentioned earlier. Subsection 2(b) refers to
the conveyance in that area".
That is a critical phrase. It means the area of the concession. It goes on:
by means of a pipe or system of pipes of minerals gotten, or gas being stored or recovered, in the exercise of that right.
Again, that is a critical phrase because it refers to the right granted by the concession.
I understand the concerns of the industry. Therefore, I have looked closely at this matter and not only taken the legal advice available to me but also consulted parliamentary counsel. It is clear to them that the words "in that area" in the paragraph to which I referred limit the operation of the conveying function by reference to which a person may be a concession owner in relation to an offshore installation to the area of the concession. I shall put it another way. I have tried to follow closely the provisions of the Act. Putting this matter into layman's language, the holder of a petroleum production licence cannot he a concession owner for the purposes of the Bill in relation to an offshore installation situated in a different licensed area simply because some of his petroleum passes over or through it on its way to the shore. That is the legal explanation. I am reassured— I take seriously the Committee debates and what my hon. Friend said——that the Bill as drafted precisely covers this point. The Bill does not require any further amendment. I hope that, with reference to the previous Act, I have reassured my hon. Friend about that point.

Mr. Rowlands: I have closely followed the Minister's remarks. I shall pose a question in layman's terms in the hope that he can give an affirmative answer. Could not the Heather partners, who have no interest in the Ninian platform or production, possibly have liability for the abandonment of the Ninian central platform? If the Minister will confirm that point, at least we will know that we have translated the legal language into a practical example.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is right. The hon. Gentleman has correctly translated my interpretation of the legal situation.
This is an important point. It is one about which, even following discussions, some representatives of the oil industry have been concerned. I hope that my spelling out of this matter will have helped to reassure them why I am so confident that this measure is correct. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay that I do not seek to rest


on reassurances that, I appreciate, could have no force of law. I rest my case on what is in the Bill, which, in turn, is based on previous legislation.
I wish to refer now to my substantial group of amendments. In doing so, I shall cover some of the points that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney raised. I am glad to be able to respond to the Committee and to the House. I appreciate that, because of the way the Bill was drafted originally—this was a point of concern at all stages of deliberation from Second Reading—there was genuine concern that the Bill was cast rather too widely. It was considered that we could have achieved our purposes effectively without ranging so wide. I was glad to have the reassurance of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney that in certain circumstances one must maintain ultimate protection for the taxpayer, but that we should go down a rather more sensible road. That is what I have tried to do, and that is why I gave the commitment in Committee on 13 January.
The amendments introduce a trigger mechanism into the arrangements for serving notice outside the immediate licensees of installations and parties to joint operating agreements, or designated owners in the case of submarine pipelines. I am sorry that this has involved such a complicated and formidable batch of amendments. However, I warned the Committee that might be the case.
There are two amendments to clause 2. Amendment No. 3, which relates to installations, introduces for the first time parties to a joint operating agreement or similar agreement— I emphasise that, because it does not necessarily have to be a joint operating agreement—as persons to whom notice may be given under clause 1. That is a logical development, and I believe that it was accepted in Committee, because it is under the joint operating agreement that the conduct of operations in the licensed area will generally be regulated.
Thus, as far as installations are concerned, the Secretary of State will in the first instance have three groups of persons upon whom to draw in giving notice, as we are retaining power to give notice to the person who has registered the installation, pursuant to the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971 and "concession owners", as defined in that Act, with whom I dealt a moment ago. That is necessary to cover the situation where, for example, there is no joint operating agreement because there is only one licensee.
Where there is a joint operating agreement, the person who has registered the installation and the concession owners will invariably be parties to it. New paragraphs (d) and (e) of clause 2(1) identify the parties to whom notice under clause 1 may be given at a later stage—that is, if those companies to which I shall initially be looking to complete the arrangements referred to in amendment No. 9 to clause 3 have been unable to do so. They are similar to paragraphs (c) and (d) in the Bill as originally drafted, except that here again we have fulfilled a commitment that we entered into in Committee to take out of the scope of clause 2 a person whose sole interest is as security for a loan, such as a bank or an institution. That is covered by amendment No. 3.
Amendment No. 5, which is the second important amendment, concerns pipelines and it parallels the first amendment. The groups of persons to whom notice may be given are essentially similar to those in the existing

clause 2(2), except that once again we have excluded banks and institutions, whose sole interest is as security for a loan, from the ambit of paragraph (b). We have also removed the possibility that the owner of a small part of any pipeline system should be made liable for the abandonment of an entire system by introducing a reference to
the whole or substantially the whole
of the pipeline in paragraph (b).
That is the first batch of amendments, which define more closely those upon whom notices may be served.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As we are on Report, I should like to follow the amendments through logically. That might be helpful to the House. The hon. Gentleman can then make a speech and I shall pick up any points that he makes.
The important point about these changes we propose to clause 3 is that, by having provided new definitions, we ensure that there is a particular sequence of events so that a catch-all situation becomes a fallback and long stop, not a first stop. That is why amendment No. 9 to clause 3, to which I referred briefly a moment ago, is critical. The amendments to clause 3 provide the trigger mechanisms that enable the Secretary of State to serve notice on the wider classes of companies referred to in clause 2.
Subsection (1A) stipulates that the Secretary of State may not serve a notice before 1 July 1988 on the companies in the wider classes to which I have just referred—that is, to associated companies and companies owning an interest in the installation or pipeline but which do not, however, fall within subsection (1) (a), (b) or (c) or subsection (2) (a) of clause 2. The purpose of this date is to enable companies to which notice has been given to enter into appropriate abandonment arrangements. We recognise that this may not always be easy, but we have to guard against providing an opportunity for unnecessary delay.
We believe that the date 1 July 1988—although I do not claim that there is anything desperately magical about it—provides, in practical terms, a reasonable balance between not requiring things to be done too quickly and preventing companies from unnecessarily delaying putting in place the kind of arrangements that I should like to be put in place through the joint operating agreement, or a similar agreement, between the parties to the licence. There will, of course, be no compulsion on the Secretary of State to give notice more widely, once that date is agreed. He will still be able to exercise a certain amount of discretion, and I have no doubt that in practice the parties will be in touch with the Department of Energy. If they believe that a satisfactory arrangement is within reach, although the precise date has not been complied with, I am quite sure that they will want the Secretary of State to hold his fire. I am also quite sure that in such circumstances any reasonable Secretary of State would do so.
New subsections (2A) and (3A) prevent the Secretary of State from serving notice more widely in respect of either offshore installations or submarine pipelines where he is satisfied with the arrangements, including financial arrangements, which have been made for abandonment by the persons to whom notice has already been given. The


effect of this is that the Secretary of State may not give notice more widely where satisfactory arrangements have been made and where they continue in operation.
New subsection (4A) enables the Secretary of State to serve notice more widely, either because the persons to whom notice has already been given have failed to submit an abandonment programme or because a programme, for one reason or another, has been rejected by the Secretary of State. This is the first circumstance amounting to default to which I referred in Standing Committee. The second circumstance of default is provided by the new subsection (2A) to clause 6— amendment No. 17—which enables the Secretary of State to propose that any of the wider classes of companies mentioned in clause 2 should become liable to secure that an abandonment programme is carried out, where a person who is already under such a duty has failed to carry it out, or seems likely to fail. The Secretary of State can therefore step in if at any time after approval of a programme he becomes concerned as to the financial status of the parties concerned.
I have attempted to deal with the main amendments. There are other amendments, but I assure the House that they are of a purely consequential nature. However, I hope that my explanation has followed through the sequence of events and that I have reassured the House about what I have achieved. Nevertheless, there is one matter to which I should like to return. I have dealt with the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay and I hope that at the same time I have covered most of the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfyl and Rhymney. However, I do not think that I have yet answered adequately his second amendment that deals with pipelines.

Mr. Rowlands: Before the Minister deals with my pipelines amendment, I should point out that he has not answered the question that I put to him about concession owners. Who is a concession owner who is not an operator, a co-licensee or a person with an interest in the installation?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We need this term to cover all the licensees. It is conceivable that there may be no joint operating agreement. We may not always know who owns an installation. We always know who the licensees are. That is why it is important to follow it through that particular route.
8.30 pm
I shall turn to the point on pipelines that was made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. I confirm that it is our intention, in the first instance, to give notice under clause 1 to designated owners of pipelines. The designation exercise is under way already. One of the reasons why I have chosen this route is that we already have the power. I hope that I reassured the hon. Gentleman in Committee as to why we have chosen that route. It is our intention to follow the industry's practice and avoid the potential difficulties that were mentioned in Committee with respect to spur lines, T-junctions and so on.
However—this is where I am not happy with the hon. Gentleman's second amendment— we need the opportunity to give notice more widely should there be default in submitting a programme or in carrying it out. That is the purpose of paragraphs (b) and (c), which the

hon. Gentleman is seeking to remove by amendment No. 2. I have referred to amendments which affect that part of the Bill.
I hope that I have reassured the House on these points. This is an important part of the Bill. Indeed, it is the crux of the approach to the method of abandonment. On Second Reading this issue was raised, but no solution was identified. The full debates in Committee were of considerable help to me and to my Department in forming our view of the best approach, while ensuring that we protected the taxpayer. We have reached a solution which not only prevents powers from being used too widely, but gives the ultimate protection, which I hope will not be necessary.
I look to licensees, and those who work in a joint operating agreement, to put abandonment arrangements in place, either through the joint operating agreement or through some parallel agreement. If that is done, there should be no need to cast the net more widely. It has given us an opportunity to change the Bill quite substantially. I welcome the contructive way in which Members on both sides of the House have approached it. I hope that there will not be too many lingering doubts left.

Mr. Rowlands: With the leave of the House, I would like to reply. It would be churlish to carry on quibbling. the amendments represent a substantial change to the Bill, particularly the amendment to clause 3, which we did not debate because we were in wholehearted agreement with it, including the deadline of July 1988. That deadline will help people to concentrate their minds.
It is mind-boggling to believe that there are anonymous or pirate installations in the North sea, the ownership of which is not known to the Department of Energy. I hope that the Minister will check how many of those there are. It will be difficult, having served a designation order on the owners of pipelines, to find another group of people who have a whole or substantial interest in it—somebody separate from those covered by a designation order. We will have to wait and see in both cases.
We take considerable comfort from the specific illustration that has been presented to us, which could have caused concern. The Minister was assuring and legally put his head on the block by saying that the worries and concerns that we had are not valid. In the light of that, we will not be pressing our amendments.

Mr. Proctor: With the leave of the House, may I say that I will not be pressing the two amendments that I tabled, for similar reasons to that of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). It appears to me that the Government amendments mean that we are moving away from the sub-machine gun approach to the preciseness of the sniper's shot. For that reason, the amendments are to be supported and welcomed.
My right hon. Friend stressed the importance of the timing and phasing of the powers that are available to the Secretary of State. That is important and is underlined in the amendments. With regard to my amendment Nos. 1 and 4, I thought that my right hon. Friend went as far as he could in making crystal clear what he believed the position to be. I rest content, having heard that tonight, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 2, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 31 and insert—


`(c) a person outside paragraphs (a) and (b) who is a party to a joint operating agreement or similar agreement relating to rights by virtue of which a person is within paragraph (b);
(d) a person outside paragraphs (a) to (c) who owns any interest in the installation otherwise than as security for a loan;
(e) a company which is outside paragraphs (a) to (d) but is associated with a company within any of those paragraphs.'.

No. 5, in page 2, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert—
(b) a person outside paragraph (a) who owns any interest in the whole or substantially the whole of the pipe-line, otherwise than as security for a loan;
(c) a company which is outside paragraphs (a) and (b) but is associated with a company within one of those paragraphs.'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move amendment No.7, in page 2, line 53, leave out 'one-half or more' and insert 'more than one half.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it may be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 10, leave out 'or' and insert 'and'.

Mr. Rowlands: This gives an opportunity to have one last look at one of the potentially contentious issues in clause 2—the piercing of the so-called corporate veil by the provision in clause 2 to serve a notice on a company associated with another company and make it responsible and liable for abandonment. Rather than attack the principle of it, we have used these two amendments to uncover how far and to what extent the associated company chase will take. We have questioned the definition of ownership, put down in subsection (5), where it says
one half or more of the issued share capital of the company".
The controlling share, surely, is 51 per cent. A company cannot be said to be in control of another company if it has joint ownership. Therefore, we want to know why just one half. Why not more than one half, 51 per cent., which everyone would identify as a controlling share? Having written all these paragraphs out— (a) (b) (c) and (d)—to define ownership, on top of that, it is said:
or if it has power, directly or indirectly, to secure that the affairs of the company are conducted in accordance with its wishes.
In other words, although we have a definition of ownership in paragraphs (a) (b) (c) and (d), on top of that we have the word "or", and another definition of what could be a controlling interest, irrespective of the definition in subsection 5. We want the Minister to get the antecedents and parentage of these definitions, because they are important.
Although we understand why the Minister has chosen to introduce the principle of seeking to go behind one company back to a parent or associated company in the ultimate possible serving of notices, the Minister ought to be as worried as we are about the precedent that that is creating. If that becomes model legislation for other member states, some British companies that have a marginal interest in an installation in another part of the world— perhaps in the south China seas or off the Malaysian coast— and if other nations pick up this legislative model and serve notices on British parent companies, which might have the most marginal involvement in companies that are responsible for

installations in other nations' waters, we could find that those companies go to see our ambassadors and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to make representations, only to be told that the powers that are being used against them are modelled on British legislation.
The definition opens a wide door. The Minister might think that the British Government will behave sensibly, but British companies could become liable for abandonment programmes in which they have only a marginal interest. A serious precedent is being created and the House should not let it go through without being aware of its dangers.
We are seeking clarification and want the Minister to tell us where the definition comes from. We did not debate this part of the Bill thoroughly in Committee.

Mr. Proctor: I should not like the House to feel that the Opposition have a monopoly of concern in this matter. It was raised by both sides in Committee. Anxiety remains, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has given.
There are many joint venture agreements involving British companies and companies from other countries where there is a 50:50 per cent. shareholding and no absolute control. A deadlock can no doubt occur. I wonder whether it is fair for such companies to be caught by the 50 per cent. rule. I should be grateful for my right hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We did not debate this area of the Bill in detail in Committee and I quite understand why the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) seeks clarification now. I am happy to try to provide that clarification.
Clause 2(5)(a), which the hon. Gentleman would amend, provides a test of control when one company has, or is entitled to acquire, one half or more of the issued share capital of another company. The hon. Gentleman said that the clause appeared to redefine control when he spoke on Second Reading. He assumed that control involved ownership of 51 per cent. of the share capital. He is quite right to say that the clause provides for a 50 per cent. test of ownership. It does that for one reason—to catch what is called the deadlock company. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor). who has great knowledge of these matters, understands that. That happens when a company has been set up by collaborating companies, often for a specific project, and each company holds 50 per cent. of the new company's shares.
8.45 pm
Amendment No. 7 would not catch that type of deadlock company. The hon. Gentleman also said that the 50 per cent. test raises major issues and suggested what might happen to British companies abroad if our provisions were applied more widely. He will be familiar with the terms of the model clauses in the petroleum production licences such as those set out in part III of schedule 2 to the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975, which provides a test of control of one third or more for certain purposes. Those provisions have worked satisfactorily in practice and have posed no difficulty for the industry or the Government.
Amendment No. 8 would change the thrust of what I call the tailpiece to subsection (5), which provides that a company may exercise control for the purposes of part I,


even though it does not fulfil any of the criteria in paragraphs (a) to (d), because it has the power to ensure that the affairs of the second company are conducted in accordance with its wishes. Amendment No. 8 makes that an additional rather than an alternative requirement. That would defeat the purpose of the test which looks to the realities of a company's circumstances rather than to its circumstances on paper.
I confirm that there is an element of catch-all. We want to ensure that there are no difficulties or gaps, so that the proper protection of taxpayers' interests can be assured. It is better to have the Bill in its present form and to have the test as an alternative, although we hope to apply the other tests. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able not to press the amendment.

Mr. Rowlands: The definition of ownership here and the one third rule as provided in the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 apply to completely different circumstances. I understand that the latter relates to the disposal of ownership of licences. I can see why there should be a provision to ensure that licences cannot be disposed of without the consent of a Minister. That is quite a different concept from creating a liability, which is one way in which to transfer a valuable asset. I should like to be clear that I have taken up the right reference. Governments have every right to know whether ownership changes and therefore to lay down a one third ownership rule, but we are talking about something quite different here.
I shall not press our amendment, but I did not find the Minister's answer very satisfactory. He did not answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Billericay either. There are many joint ventures in the North sea oil industry and the definition of 50 per cent. or more would catch them. We shall not press the amendment, but not because we are satisfied with the Minister's response.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 3, line 19, at
beginning insert—
'(1A) The Secretary of State shall not before 1st July 1988 give a notice under section 1(1) to a person within paragraph (d) or (e) of section 2(1) or paragraph (b) or (c) of section 2(2).
(2A) Subject to subsection (4A), the Secretary of State shall not give a notice under section 1(1) in relation to an offshore installation to a person within paragraph (d) or (e) of section 2(1) if the Secretary of State has been and continues to be satisfied that adequate arrangements (including financial arrangements) have been made by a person or persons within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) to ensure that a satisfactory abandonment programme will be carried out.
(3A) Subject to subsection (4A), the Secretary of State shall not give a notice under section 1(1) in relation to a submarine pipe-line to a person within paragraph (b) or (c) of section 2(2) if the Secretary of State has been and continues to be satisfied that adequate arrangements (including financial arrangements) have been made by a person or persons within paragraph (a) to ensure that a satisfactory abandonment programme will be carried out.
(4A) Subsections (2A) and (3A) shall not apply if there has been a failure to comply with a notice under section 1(1) or if the Secretary of State has rejected a programme submitted in compliance with such a notice.'.

No. 10, in page 3, line 22, leave out 'subsection (1) of section 1' and insert 'section 1(1)'.

No. 11, in page 3, line 25, after 'give', insert
`(subject to the preceding provisions of this section)'

No. 12, in page 3, line 25, leave out 'that subsection' and insert 'section 1(1)'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 4

APPROVAL OF PROGRAMMES

Dr. Godman: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 3, line 38, at end insert—
'(3) Before approving a programme with modifications or subject to conditions which will allow an installation or pipeline or parts thereof to remain on the seabed the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself as to—
(a) any potential effect of the programme on the safety of surface or subsurface navigation;
(b) the rate of deterioration of the material left and its present and possible future effect on the marine environment;
(c) the risk that the material left will shift from its position at some future time;
(d) the costs, technical feasibility and risks of personal injury associated with removal of the installations or pipelines;
(e) the potential assignment of liability from damages resulting from any installation or pipeline or part thereof left on the seabed;
(f) the determination of a genuine new use or other reasonable justification for allowing the installation or pipeline or parts thereof to remain on the seabed, and
(g) the identification of the party responsible for maintaining the aids to navigation deemed necessary to mark the position of any obstruction to navigation and for monitoring the condition of the remaining material.'.
The contents of this amendment owe a great deal to a certain International Maritime Organisation document—NAV 33/WP. 4/REV1 dated 15 January. Some might call this plagiarism, but I would say that, in the context of this Bill and this debate, we had a borrowing requirement and we exercised it in a most sensible manner.
Removal programmes will be costly and intricate. Experts in this sector have mentioned the finance involved in removing platforms. Incidentally, I have long argued that we should be talking in terms of total removal and not partial removal. An expert, Mr. N. G. Boyd of Taywood-Santa Fe Ltd. said:
The cost of totally removing a platform, taking account of inflation over say a 20 year life, may, in monetary terms, exceed the original capital cost of the installation and this cost will be incurred at a time when production and hence revenue has ceased.
The activities involved in removal range from the preparatory work, the shutdown, the well plugging and abandonment down to the towing away and disposal of such installations and pipelines.
It is reasonable to say that at this moment we do not have much experience of this form of maritime demolition work. I am right in saying that only one platform has so far been removed from United Kingdom waters. That was a small satellite platform that was situated in approximately 100 ft of water and had a jacket weight, complete with piles, of only 400 tonnes. The cost of the removal of that platform was reported at the time— 1978—to be about £2 million.
One can imagine the cost of removing a structure of, say, 40,000 tonnes, situated in, for example, 500 ft of water. That would be an immensely costly business. However, in spite of those financial considerations and the inherent difficulties associated with removal and partial removal, we must, at all times, consider the interests of other maritime industries such as maritime transport and fishing. In that respect, paragraph (a) of our amendment emphasises the need for the Secretary of State to pay close


regard to the navigational implications of removal. I am not necessarily here talking of nuclear submarines, which are surely the most sinister vessels ever built in a shipyard.
Paragraph (b) and subsections (c), (d) and (e) would, I am sure, be welcomed by fishermen throughout the United Kingdom and throughout the EEC's fishing nations.
Paragraph (d) is concerned with deterioration of the material left on the seabed. I refer in this context to the potential dangers that are associated with toxic and hazardous chemicals and their effects upon marine life. Paragraphs (c) and (e) refer to:
the risk that the material left will shift from its position at some future time.
Paragraph (e) refers to:
the potential assignment of liability from damages resulting from any installation or pipeline or part thereof left on the seabed.
Those implications could be of critical importance to fishermen as they go about their lawful activities. Similarly, paragraph (b) emphasises the need, inter alia, to pay careful attention to the health and safety needs of those involved in what will be extremely complicated and potentially dangerous work.
With regard to the health and safety needs of those involved in the demolition of the installations I should like to ask the Minister a question, to which perhaps I should know the answer. I am sure that he will give me the answer. Does the Explosives (Age of Purchase Etc.) Act 1976 extend to the use of explosives throughout the United Kingdom's territorial waters, and, if that is the case, can I take it as given that the Act extends to the carriage and use of explosives by foreign personnel on foreign registered vessels involved in, say, felling, or as some call it, toppling, a structure in United Kingdom waters?
If the answer is in the affirmative, does the Minister and his Department envisage changes in the Explosives Act, the object of which would be to make that potentially hazardous occupation a little safer? I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to those questions when he replies. I am sure that the officials in the Box have the answers at their finger tips. I have not, and I ask the question because, at this moment, there are few people—I am talking principally about the divers involved in the offshore oil and gas industries— who have wide experience of the use of explosives in deep waters.
I am right in saying that the explosives that have been used to demolish wells have been used in vaporising them. I am sure that the Minister and his officials understand that term better than I do. I have been told by experts that vaporising wellheads and other subsea structures is a crude and inexact art. What is achieved, if that is the word, with this crude, inexact use of explosives is a scattering of debris in the area of the structure which is being dismantled. I have been told that in some cases even heavy explosive charges have been lowered down in wire baskets at the end of a long wire—it is a crude and inexact business—but the process has been wholly wasteful. I am given to understand that the Norwegians, once a well has been demolished by explosives, drag heavy trawling gear across the area of the installation, to ensure that the debris is at an acceptable level for the interests of the fishermen. I am sure that if I have got that wrong, the Minister will correct me. As I am sure that the Minister will agree, these are important questions, to which I shall refer on Third Reading.
Paragraph (g) acknowledges, reasonably, that pipe infrastructures may need to stay in place, since the existence of such infrastructures might well encourage the development of nearby fields. I refer the Minister to the debate that we had in Committee and to his positive contribution, in which he said that his Department was most interested in the use of artificial matting to cover over those sections of the pipeline that are subjected to natural phenomena such as scour.
I may seem sceptical about the idea of changing these platforms into rafts or reefs for the growth and exploitation of shellfish colonies. Such a project may work successfully off the coastline of Alabama in the United States, but I am not sure that it would work off the coastline of Scotland. However, my mind is open enough to be dissuaded of my prejudice if possible.
9 pm
The last section points to the need to maintain navigational aids in perpetuity. The Minister may not be able to answer my next point because it may be the responsibility not of his Department but of that of the Secretary of State for Transport. The cost of these navigational aids might be partially met by the imposition of light dues. That question needs to be addressed.
The monitoring of the remaining material will be a crucial issue for fishermen. Again, there are many implications. The amendment highlights some of the issues associated with the removals of platforms and pipelines. These issues are of considerable importance to other maritime industries, principally the fishing industry.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The amendment has a useful place in the debate because it details the heart of the dilemma of the Bill which, as the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said, includes many unknowns, in terms of both costs and technology, that have not been explored fully. What follows on from the Bill will have to expand considerably from its basis. Both the users of the sea who might be affected by the partial removal of the platforms and the operators of platforms that will be removed need to know the implications and the ongoing liabilities, and where they stop and the lines are drawn. The amendment addresses itself to some of those problems, so it is useful to probe, for the record, the great deal of unfinished business that the Bill leaves. It has only begun to explore the process of what is involved.
When the Bill becomes law, and the industry and the Government go on to try to work out the implications of removing installations, the debate will centre on the need to limit liability in terms of both space and time.
Many of us believe that the total removal of a platform will always be the best possible solution if it is achievable within a realistic framework. if that course is followed, the problem of liability does not apply. The installation is removed and the sea bed, to all intents and purposes, is returned to normal. However, we all understand the difficulties and costs involved in the removal of platforms and we understand that these problems require us to consider the possibility of something less than partial removal.
I must express concern that the worries of the people who installed the platforms in the first place must not be allowed in any way to modify the pressure for ensuring the most effective removal and monitoring of what remains. Cost considerations must obviously be taken into account.
However, these considerations must not be allowed to dilute the commitment to find ways, if possible, of removing platforms or making them acceptable and safe.
The amendment identifies the problems that exist in breaking up, migrating and marking and, if damage occurs, of identifying liability. That point relates to amendment No. 1 moved by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor). We must know what operators are liable for and the operators also need to know. Consortia change and we need to know whom to approach.
If we could stick to the ideal principle of total removal, we would avoid those problems. However, I accept that it is sensible in this enabling Bill to allow for that possibility. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) may not necessarily believe that the amendment will be incorporated in the Bill. However, it is a marker which encapsulates the list of relevant problems and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that it addresses relevant considerations. The industry and the Department of Energy must come to grips with these problems.
Once the Bill becomes law, I hope that the Minister will stimulate and, if necessary, commission more intensive research into identifying and dealing with these problems. Only in that context are we likely to modify or reassure the views of those people who arc rightly concerned about anything less than partial removal. At the moment I believe that those people are right to be worried. I can hardly blame them for standing out for total removal as the ideal way to solve the problem.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Throughout the early stages of this Bill, Opposition and Conservative Members identified areas of international law, international responsibilities, legal and moral responsibilities, areas of environmental concerns and areas of new technology and the possibilities which that new technology would bring to job prospects in the industry. At the moment, the industry has seen a great reduction in the number of people employed building structures for the North sea. We argued that those people might be usefully employed while we were deliberating in Committee on the training and procedures which the Bill would hopefully establish. We hoped that that training would be the responsibility of those who placed the structures and pipelines off our shores.
In Committee we identified those responsibilities and there was much concern on the Government and Opposition Front Benches about the draconian character of parts of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister recalls the debate that he had with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rolands) about the draconian nature of clause 4 and the lack of arbitration which my hon. Friend explained had existed in previous legislation. When the Minister suggested that no criteria existed, my hon. Friend said that, if criteria were published, they might be the backcloth against which the Secretary of State's proposals could be decided. If his proposals were found to be too strong, those affected by his decisions who had stayed within the published criteria could be allowed arbitration. Now that criteria have come from the meeting of the International Maritime Organisation, will the Minister reconsider what he said about the draconian nature of clause 4? Does he believe that it would be right to provide for arbitration, given the criteria that now exist?
From reading the report of the Committee stage, when the Minister gave us an idea of how the International Maritime Organisation discussions had gone, and from an examination of the draft guidelines and standards which are contained in the document mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), one can see the hand of the Minister or his Department in those guidelines and standards. It might be useful to take a few minutes to examine some of the guidelines and standards and question the Minister to discover how he intends to pursue them. When he gave us an idea of what they were likely to be, it was against the background that the United Kingdom input into the discussions was along the lines outlined by the Minister during the debate.
Although we could not participate in those discussions, it was as though there had been a fly on the wall of the Committee Room and a fly on the wall of the committee of the International Maritime Organisation. Both committees were determined to ensure that wherever and whenever possible we should return the environment to its natural state, or to as near a natural state as possible, before our structures and pipelines invaded that environment.
It was right to pursue those matters in Committee and for us to suggest that the guidelines be incorporated in the Bill. Although, after listening to the Minister, we may decide not to push the amendment, perhaps it could be incorporated in a future licensing round or in a joint operating agreement between the Government and the operator.
Another useful debate in Committee concerned the experiences of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who reminded us of his formative years as a junior construction engineer. He said that, had he been aware of his grave responsibility when he was involved in the nuclear industry, he might have taken a little more time in the construction of nuclear installations.
9.15 pm
My hon. Friend certainly gave us the benefit of his training. He said that, if one was ever in doubt about who was responsible for different parts of a project, one should consult the contract documents and in them one would find, set out quite clearly, the responsibility for each activity undertaken.
The amendment, which has been drafted from the International Maritime Organisation's guidelines, gives the Minister some indication of how Opposition Members want him to approach future joint operating agreements and how we would like to see this legislation put into practice. Could the Minister tell us if he intends to pursue those areas in the IMO document which were not agreed and which are, therefore, in parentheses?
For instance, paragraph 2.2 of the document refers to
The determination of any potential effect on … (the location of commercial fishing areas)".
I should like to hear, as would the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, from the Minister if he intends to pursue this assiduously and to have the parentheses removed, so as to make this phrase part of the paragraph rather than something that is not agreed.
In paragraph 2.3 we have a reference to monitoring parts of structures left on the seabed and their impact
on navigation (or the marine environment)".
Once again, those words are in parentheses. We had a very long debate on the effects on the marine environment and


voiced our concern that it should be returned to as near its natural state as possible. Will the Minister assure us that he intends to have those parentheses removed and make the statement part of the general guidelines?
Paragraph 3.4 says:
In situations where entire removal is technically unfeasible or would involve extreme cost, or an unacceptable risk to personnel or marine environment … the coastal state may determine that it need not be entirely removed.
It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us just who would determine the criteria so that we knew exactly how he intended to pursue that clause in future discussions.
The amendment offers the Minister an opportunity to make it quite clear that the success enjoyed by his representatives at the IMO meeting will be built on, and also to indicate to the industry and those outside who are listening to our debate that he is determined to ensure that when all this is over we shall return the environment as nearly as possible to its previous state.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I am grateful to my two hon. Friends who have demonstrated that the Opposition has reached international standards in drafting an amendment; as the Minister will perceive, our amendment is very much a response to the expertise and involvement of the International Maritime Organisation.
The amendment is very important and, although we will not spend very much time on this debate, it is right that we ask the Minister, if he disagrees with the amendment, to tell us in precise detail where his disagreements lie. Is there any part of the amendment with which he disagrees?
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) is right to press the point that we must leave the environment in decent order. As chairman of the Council of Europe's committee for the environment, I would hate to think that all the work that we have done here would lead to my committee receiving complaints from another national assembly about the responsibilities of Britain not being properly exercised. The Minister must respond positively to the amendment.
The Minister may feel it impossible to accept the amendment as it stands, but many interest groups and the industry need to know where the Government stand. Some other member states of the International Maritime Organisation have been more precise. The Soviet Union takes the view that there should be no exemption to the 300 m depth limit. France and the United States of America do not wish to see many exceptions to the general rule. We are not sure where the Government stand. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) would prefer total removal, but he is realistic. We need to know how much realism the Government will show. So my hon. Friends are entitled to ask these questions, and the amendment is justified.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), in a brief but substantial contribution, reminded the House of the enormous costs involved. He also reminded us of the substantial risks which the fishing industry could face if the Government do not apply satisfactory standards. As a Member sponsored by the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, a small but important union whose members are trained and frequently use explosives, I have not yet heard that the Department has consulted my trade union about the use of explosives in

industry. Certainly I am worried about the concept of vaporisation. My hon. Friend caused several of us to be anxious; his fears may need less relief than mine.

Dr. Godman: I am sorry if I gave my hon. Friend the vapours. No doubt he will readily acknowledge that there is a world of difference between using controlled explosives in a coal mine, although there are dangers there, and using explosives to remove structures several hundred feet below the surface of the sea.

Mr. Hardy: I accept that. I was coming to the point that there are very strict controls on the use of explosives in collieries. The point that my hon. Friend made about vaporisation suggests that there must be strict controls on the use of explosives offshore. I hope that the Minister has received adequate advice on the matter.
We have not spent long on the amendment, but the Minister must recognise that we need to know where the Government stand. The industry is entitled to know that, and the House certainly is. While the Minister may not be prepared to accept the amendment, I am sure that he will agree, in view of our consideration of the matter in Committee, that the House should have not necessarily a long response but one that is firm, positive and clear.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I assure the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) that, when the amendment appeared on the Order Paper it did not take long to trace its parentage. One should always be proud of one's children. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman no doubt felt it worth while to expose the amendment to the full light of scrutiny in the House.
I address one word of caution particularly to the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) who is perhaps interpreting the IMO document too widely. If he had considered the whole document, he would have noticed that what is in the body of the amendment is referred to in the document as "preliminary draft guidelines". No phraseology could be more tentative. The hon. Gentleman should have read further into that document. He asked me whether I would also adopt the parts of the document that are in parentheses. If he had read a bit further, he would have discovered that those parts are in parentheses because they were believed to be beyond the competence of the sub-committee that was considering the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not found too much on this point.
The work of the IMO is important, but as it and the sub-committee acknowledged, it deals primarily with navigation. There will be discussion in other interanational forums about matters other than navigation, important though it is. When we looked at this in Committee, we recognised that navigation is important and that it underlies the policies followed in the IMO, in the United States and in the Soviet Union.
This is an important document and my officials took part in its preparation. It is obviously at an early stage of consideration and has many more processes to go through over a considerable time. It is a good starting point and I commend the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow for choosing a topic that helps to concentrate our minds on the way we should approach these issues. As we have all recognised from the beginning, and as I have never sought to hide from the House, the Bill is simply a beginning, a framework. That is because we are preparing for a situation which probably will not arise on any scale until the mid–1990s.
Some people may say that it is unnecessary to bring in such provisions as early as this. That is a wrong approach. It is necessary to start to concentrate people's minds now, because there is a great deal of work to be done. I have never tried to make any apology for bringing in these provisions so early even though some of the Bill's provisions, especially clause 11 which we are discussing, are tentative. That is because there is so much work to be done. The international regulations on which the amendments are based will be subject to a great deal of refinement and once they are agreed the Government will have to observe them. They will become a major part of the conditions; hence one of the reasons for the general nature of clause 11. It will enable us to provide a flexible system which can change over time to meet, perhaps, even developments at international level.
I hope that the House recognises that this is a realistic and practical approach. In clause 11(2) we have sought to describe the main areas that we think the regulations should cover. We have been careful in the wording of that clause, without prejudice to the generality of clause 11(1). That leaves us with enormous room, so that if other circumstances arise, they can at least be covered. The Committee broadly welcomed what we sought to specify in clause 11— broad headings and broad categories, which I hope cover most of the points raised in this debate and in committee. The effect on navigation underlies the IMO document and, of course, we are bound under international obligations to take account of standards and safety regulations.
The deterioration of material and its effect on the marine environment has already been covered to some extent in clause 11(2)(c) in its provisions for the prevention of pollution. At the same time we have—this is important because it underlines the preliminary nature of the Bill—embarked upon an extensive research and development programme. The House will be aware that the research and development programme is being sponsored by the Science and Engineering Research Council and my Department is playing a considerable role in that programme. It is examining the effects on the environment, including the fisheries criteria. Therefore. we already have work under way in this important area.
9.30 pm
Matters of personal injury are obviously important and there is a question of prescribing under clause 11(2)(a), standards and safety requirements. Of course, that is important in any circumstance and not just in the instance of abandonment. It may require special provisions, but there can be regulations under this clause.
I want to reassure the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow that there is a full weight of offshore safety regulations and that these will remain in force while the dismantling takes place. I am glad to have had the opportunity to say that those regulations already exist in addition to what may be introduced as a result of this legislation.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) laid particular emphasis—again, rightly so—on liability for damage. That is something that the oil companies will have to address and obviously that will have a certain relevance in relation to costs. Such things are covered by the provisions relating to standards of inspection but there could be a provision in a programme for monitoring. Therefore, any liabilities for something that is left only

partially removed could be covered within that programme should the Secretary of State so require. Therefore, the House is absolutely right to draw attention to that, and it may well be something that the industry, in the years ahead, will need to consider in the overall costs of an abandonment. in whatever form. Again, that is adequately covered by the umbrella nature of the regulations that will be brought in later under clause 11.
We have had a good opportunity yet again this evening to go over all the main areas of importance. None of them are exclusive to each other, but each has a different importance attached to it and is important to different interests. We must think not only of the interest of the oil industry and the costs that may be involved but of the many other matters covered in the amendment and clause 11, which provides an opportunity for full account to be taken of the other users of the sea whether navigators, fishermen or anyone else.
I welcome this opportunity to reiterate that all the issues are important. When standards are worked out, whether they are the result of a research and development programme—for example, the use of explosives—or of the international standards to which this amendment is specifically drawn, or whether they relate to some of the interests of the other users of the sea covered under the regulation-making powers of clause 11. I hope that we have made provision, at this early stage, to ensure that all those important points are covered.
I thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow for giving us another opportunity, finally to debate all these important subjects.

Dr. Godman: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

FAILURE TO SUBMIT PROGRAMMES

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 4, line 13, leave out from 'sum' to 'for' in line 14.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 15, 19 and 20.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), with his customary assiduity, drew attention in Committee to the interest that may be charged on any sum that is outstanding where the Secretary of State has prepared an abandonment programme, and said that it should be a commercial rate. Although I was unable to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment at that stage, I undertook to consider the matter further and, hopefully, to make the wording more precise. I have done that, and a similar point arises in relation to clause 9.
In considering the amendments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will perhaps feel that he has got two for the price of one and that that will be some consolation for the fact that I did not respond more positively to the earlier amendment that he moved.

Mr. Hardy: I wish briefly to express my appreciation to the Minister. The Department of Energy obviously has an interest in the matter as we were seeking to protect the Secretary of State for Energy from some of the ravaging


demands made by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We know that interest rates are already, sadly, very high and gravely burdensome in Britain. However, it may be that the industry would rather pay the commercial interest rate than a charge which a rather rapacious Chancellor of the Exchequer may wish to levy in some future year when the Government's coffers are not quite so swollen with the results of privatisation.
It would be churlish of me to continue and, in any case, we do not have the time. However, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. We accept the amendment with considerable pleasure.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 4, line 16, at end insert—
'(5A) The rate of interest payable in accordance with subsection (5) shall be a rate determined by the Secretary of State as comparable with commercial rates.'.— [Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 6

REVISION OF PROGRAMMES

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 4, line 37, leave out 'or (d)' and insert (d) or (e)'.

No. 17, in page 4, line 45, at end add—
'(2A) The Secretary of State shall not propose that a person who is or has been within paragraph (d) or (e) (but no other paragraph) of section 2(1) or paragraph (b) or (c) (but not paragraph (a)) of section 2(2) shall have a duty to secure that a programme is carried out unless it appears to the Secretary of State that a person already under that duty has failed or may fail to discharge it.'.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Clause 9

DEFAULT IN CARRYING OUT PROGRAMMES

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 5, line 49, leave out from 'sum' to 'for' in line 50.

No. 20, in page 5, line 52, at end insert—
'(4A) The rate of interest payable in accordance with subsection (4) shall be a rate determined by the Secretary of State as comparable with commercial rates.'.— [Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Schedule 1

AMENDMENT OF EXISTING LICENCES

Mr. Hardy: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 19, line 22, at end insert—
'(1B) The Minister may not give a direction under Clause 1A—
(a) when to do so would impose an unreasonable economic burden on a proposed programme of development in respect of any part of the licensed area;
(b) in respect of any part of an oil field (whether or not it is such for the purposes of the Oil Taxation Act 1975) for which a programme of development had been served on the licensee or approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) before …………date……… 1987,
(c) in respect of any offshore installation on which the proposed separate measuring or weighing appliances are to be installed, at a date later than that on which the installation was first approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) or in respect of which a programme of development was served on the licensee under that clause.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 23, in page 23, line 3, at end insert—
'(1B) The Minister may not give a direction under Clause 1A—
(a) when to do so would impose an unreasonable economic burden on a proposed programme of development in respect of any part of the licensed area;
(b) in respect of any part of an oil field (whether or not it is such for the purposes of the Oil Taxation Act 1975) for which a programme of development had been served on the licensee or approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) before …………date……… 1987,
(c) in respect of any offshore installation on which the proposed separate measuring or weighing appliances are to be installed, at a date later than that on which the installation was first approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) or in respect of which a programme of development was served on the licensee under that clause.'.
No. 24, in schedule 2, page 32, line 25, at end insert—
'(1B) The Minister may not give a direction under Clause 1A—
(a) when to do so would impose an unreasonable economic burden on a proposed programme of development in respect of any part of the licensed area;
(b) in respect of any part of an oil field (whether or not it is such for the purposes of the Oil Taxation Act 1975) for which a programme of development had been served on the licensee or approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) before …………date……… 1987,
(c) in respect of any offshore installation on which the proposed separate measuring or weighing appliances are to be installed, at a date later than that on which the installation was first approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) or in respect of which a programme of development was served on the licensee under that clause.'.
No. 25, in page 28, line 14, at end insert—
'(1B) The Minister may not give a direction under Clause 1A—
(a) When to do so would impose an unreasonable economic burden on a proposed programme of development in respect of any part of the licensed area;
(b) in respect of any part of an oil field (whether or not it is such for the purposes of the Oil Taxation Act 1975) for which a programme of development had been served on the licensee or approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) before …………date……… 1987,
(c) in respect of any offshore installation on which the proposed separate measuring or weighing appliances are to be installed, at a date later than that on which the installation was first approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) or in respect of which a programme of development was served on the licensee under that clause.'.
No. 26, in page 29, line 39, at end insert—
'(1B) The Minister may not give a direction under Clause 1A—
(a) When to do so would impose an unreasonable economic burden on a proposed programme of development in respect of any part of the licensed area;
(b) in respect of any part of an oil field (whether or not it is such for the purposes of the Oil Taxation Act 1975) for which a programme of development had been served on the licensee or approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) before …………date……… 1987,
(c) in respect of any offshore installation on which the proposed separate measuring or weighing appliances are to be installed, at a date later than


that on which the installation was first approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) or in respect of which a programme of development was served on the licensee under that clause.'.
No. 27, in page 30, line 12, at end insert—
(1B) The Minister may not give a direction under Clause 1A—
(a) When to do so would impose an unreasonable economic burden on a proposed programme of development in respect of any part of the licensed area;
(b) in respect of any part of an oil field (whether or not it is such for the purposes of the Oil Taxation Act 1975) for which a programme of development had been served on the licensee or approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) before …………date……… 1987,
(c) in respect of any offshore installation on which the proposed separate measuring or weighing appliances are to be installed, at a date later than that on which the installation was first approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) or in respect of which a programme of development was served on the licensee under that clause.'.
No. 28, in page 26, line 26, at end insert—
'(1B) The Minister may not give a direction under Clause 1A—
(a) When to do so would impose an unreasonable economic burden on a proposed programme of development in respect of any part of the licensed area;
(b) in respect of any part of an oil field (whether or not it is such for the purposes of the Oil Taxation Act 1975) for which a programme of development had been served on the licensee or approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) before …………date……… 1987,
(c) in respect of any offshore installation on which the proposed separate measuring or weighing appliances are to be installed, at a date later than that on which the installation was first approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) or in respect of which a programme of development was served on the licensee under that clause.'.
No. 29, in schedule 2, page 31, line 48, at end insert—
'(1B) The Minister may not give a direction under Clause 1A—
(a) When to do so would impose an unreasonable economic burden on a proposed programme of development in respect of any part of the licensed area;
(b) in respect of any part of an oil field (whether or not it is such for the purposes of the Oil Taxation Act 1975) for which a programme of development had been served on the licensee or approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) before …………date……… 1987;
(c) in respect of any offshore installation on which the proposed separate measuring or weighing appliances are to he installed, at a date later than that on which the installation was first approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) or in respect of which a programme of development was served on the licensee under that clause.'.
No. 30, in page 34, line 14, at end insert—
'(1B) The Minister may not give a direction under Clause 1A—
(a) When to do so would impose an unreasonable economic burden on a proposed programme of development in respect of any part of the licensed area;
(b) in respect of any part of an oil field (whether or not it is such for the purposes of the Oil Taxation Act 1975) for which a programme of development had been served on the licensee or approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) before …………date……… 1987;
(c) in respect of any offshore installation on which the proposed separate measuring or weighing

appliances are to be installed, at a date later than that on which the installation was first approved or consented to by the Minister under Clause (15) or in respect of which a programme of development was served on the licensee under that clause.'.

Mr. Hardy: I hope that the Minister does not think that I am ignoring the pretty full response that he offered at our last sitting in Committee, when he responded to a series of amendments which I had tabled to deal with the question of measurement. His response then was extremely interesting. However, I think that the Minister will understand that he is dealing with a complex and important matter and that he may welcome the brief opportunity to reassure the industry a little more fully and perhaps in a little more detail as to the effect which the provisions of schedules 1 and 2 would have in relation to measurement, especially on the question of the development of satellite platforms, which are essentially unmanned and which therefore cannot have separation and measurement equipment upon them. That was the basis of my concern in Committee.
The Minister will understand that if we are to seek the 625 trillion cu ft that was identified as an alternative to the purchase of the Norwegian Sleipner gas, satellite platform development may be essential. Therefore, it is right that we have tabled amendments to deal with this subject. The Minister knows that we shall not press them to a Division. However, I hope that he will accept that the amendments have been tabled so that a proper assurance can be given and so that the oil and gas industries will know that they have the backing of hon. Members on both sides of the House for a proper policy of adequate extraction of our offshore reserves. It would be frightful if reserves were riot properly exploited but were left sterile, never to be tapped, because of the short-sighted fiscal arrangements.
The industry should be assured that the arrangements will not be short-sighted and that proper management of our offshore reserves will be maintained. We have tabled the amendments to give the Minister a chance to offer the industry reassurance because the hesitation which may have been involved in the Bill initially could well have aroused anxiety which should not be fostered. The Minister might like to take this opportunity to relieve and remove those anxieties.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am glad to respond to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) in the spirit in which he moved the amendment. I recognise, as I did in Committee, that there is anxiety about this, in particular about the effect that the provisions in the Bill as drafted may have on satellite developments which in the years ahead could prove, and indeed are already proving, a useful source of development in the North sea, and about ensuring that we exploit our resources to the full. I consulted the industry and had discussions with individual Members on this, as my officials have. I believe that we have met their anxieties, but it may be helpful quickly to go over some of those points tonight.
First, I should make an important preliminary point which must not be overlooked. Although these provisions apply to existing licences, they are not automatic requirements. They apply only if a direction is given by the Secretary of State, and it is important to remember that. Perhaps we did not dwell sufficiently on that point in Committee.
The amendment highlights particular points of concern, and perhaps by taking the amendment I can give


the assurances that he seeks. Paragraph (a) in each of the amendments seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from giving a direction when to do so would impose an "unreasonable economic burden". I said in Committee, and I repeat tonight, that these provisions will be applied with full regard to economic considerations. It is self-evident that it would not be in the interests of the Department to discourage development; instead, we must seek to encourage it, as we have always done.
Paragraph (b) seeks to prevent the new arrangements applying in respect of part of an oilfield. In certain circumstances that may be necessary, but broadly the intention is to continue to accept unitisation agreements where a field straddling two or more licensed areas is worked and developed as a unit, and the licensees' shares of petroleum won and saved are determined by application of agreed unitisation factors to the quantity measured for the field as a whole.
Paragraph (c) seeks to ensure that the new arrangements may not be applied in respect of existing installations. As I have said, there is no intention to alter the method agreed for an existing field, except where it is proposed to make use of an existing field's facilities in measuring petroleum won and saved from another field.
As I have made clear to the industry, and endeavour to make clear to the House again tonight, we are not seeking to apply some elaborate gold-plated standards of measurement for the sake of it. The provisions will be applied consistently with our general philosophy of ensuring that worthwhile developments can go ahead while revenues are protected. My Department's gas and oil measurement branch works closely and regularly on a practical level, not only with UKOOA, which has raised some of these anxieties, but with the Institute of Petroleum and individual oil companies on developments in good oilfield practice in these times of rapidly changing technology. I assure the House that we shall certainly always have regard both to good oilfield practice and to economic considerations.
I hope that with this opportunity to repeat those assurances, perhaps even more specifically than I have done previously, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment. I thank him for the opportunity to repeat them again.

Mr. Hardy: The Minister will recognise that I am grateful for those assurances which will be looked at closely by the industry. I certainly accept his point about unitisation and he was right to make it as clearly and specifically as he did. We are completely reassured about the arrangements for two separate fields. However, I have a remaining anxiety. I shall not press the Minister to respond to it this evening, but I hope that he will attend carefully to it. My anxiety may not be justified. I do not claim to be a professional geologist and I have no claims to whatever other professional qualifications proliferate for offshore discovery, development and technology.
The remaining anxiety related to the possible position of one field. One field may consist of many reservoirs. Given the small fields, particularly the small gas fields that must be developed without crossing the interests of one field or another, the development of satellite platforms may require a more positive system of approval than so far is envisaged. I am glad to note from the Minister's

comments that it seems to be clear that the Department of Energy does not intend to adopt such a system of measurement requirement or fiscal regulation as would prevent use of satellite platforms.
9.45 pm
Given that remaining anxiety, which may be worth another examination by the Department between now and the time that the Bill reaches the other place, it would be churlish of me not to thank the Minister for the detailed response that he offered in Committee and for his further response— which I am sure he will agree was better made this evening— to relieve the remaining anxieties within the industry, which faces considerable problems in regard to abandonment programmes.
It was rather sad that an important piece of legislation concerned with abandonment should also have had schedules cluttered up with almost incomprehensible terminology about taxation and measurement. It may have been better to introduce a small Bill on a rather more leisurely basis in regard to this draconian measure. I quote the word "draconian" from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee. West (Mr. Ross). It was used frequently in Committee and on Second Reading. I am glad that the Government will not be quite so draconian about measurement.
I am obliged to the Minister for the explanation and assurance that he offered to the House, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.— [Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have reached the final stage of the Bill in the House of Commons, subject to anything that may happen in another place. In some ways it has been a strange Bill with which to work. We are dealing not with a future hypothetical situation but with one that will arise and about which many understandable uncertainties have been expressed. Ours will be one of the first major offshore areas in which abandonment of installations is likely to arise. To that extent we are treading new ground and preparing a new road. The Bill has meant that we have had wide debates. It has allowed many diverse considerations to be involved. None the less, I express my thanks to all those who participated in the debates. We have accepted not only the challenge of preparing for the 1990s, but the difficulties in which we labour. We have also sought to provide a structure for abandonment when, in many ways, if we had had the necessary knowledge and experience, it would have been more satisfying to be able also to legislate for the details of abandonment. None the less, we were right to proceed with the Bill in this way.
We are dealing with a large and important sector of the British economy. It is important that the industry knows in what conditions and framework it must work. The Bill also underlines the opportunity taken to update legislation. As the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) mentioned, the Bill has given us an opportunity to deal with matters such as measurement.
The Bill highlights and demonstrates the continuing need for co-operation between the Government and industry. This Bill simply provides a framework. I hope


that the co-operation that there has been over its drafting and during its parliamentary stages, including the constructive changes that have been introduced with the approval of both sides of the House, will continue when the important regulations and international standards have to be drawn up before we tackle the first abandonment. The international background will be of particular importance.
I hope that research and development will continue on a satisfactory basis. We do not yet know enough about how some of the abandonment procedures will be carried out, or about their effect on the environment. This programme has therefore been embarked upon and I hope that details will emerge from it as to how to frame the regulations.
We are referring to a national resource that lies under the sea. The sea is used by many other people for thoroughly legitimate and long-standing purposes, such as navigation and fishing. A great deal of consultation went into the preparation of the Bill. I urge all those who are involved— the oil industry, shipping and navigational interests and the fishing industry— to continue to co-operate so that conflict can be avoided and to ensure that we make the best possible use of these resources for the nation as a whole.

Mr. Rowlands: I echo and second many of the Minister's sentiments. It was the ancient scholar Livy who observed that laws are as mortal as man. For the last five or six years the Minister and I have debated many measures. In most cases, the lines have been drawn and the trenches have been dug. Eventually we have been guillotined and the Government have had their Bills. I hope that some of those Acts will not be immortal. However, there was genuine co-operation over this Bill. We are trying to anticipate a problem that will arise in the next decade or so. Some of us may still he Members of Parliament when the first abandonment takes place, and we have begun a legislative process to prepare for that day. The good boy scouts' principle lies behind the Bill: to be prepared in good time for the day when we have to tackle the enormous problems surrounding the abandonment of these North sea installations.
When we began consideration of this Bill, we faced the nightmarish concept of leaving behind in the deepest North sea large physical structures, sawn off below the waterline, that could cause considerable concern to fishermen, mariners and navigational interests. We have been debating how to provide an international framework of standards as well as a national set of regulations to deal with the abandonment of important installations.
I do not want to be too philosophical, but man is transient. So, too, are Governments. Sometimes we abuse the environment and our resources. We must ensure that having enjoyed the fruits of the North sea, in terms of the minerals that have been won and the oil and gas that have been delivered, we leave the North sea in the best possible condition and ensure that it is compatible with environmental standards of the highest quality. That has been behind much of our argument. It has been a pleasure to serve on this Bill because we have had a genuinely consultative process and the Bill has changed a lot as a result. We give the Bill our full support.

Mr. Proctor: I congratulate the Government on introducing what has readily been regarded as a timely measure. By addressing the future now, they have cleared away a great deal of uncertainty among the industry and other interested parties.
This is an important Bill. We are concerned with expenditure of between £5 billion and £6 billion and the abandonment of 160 installations and associated pipeline activities. The Bill is important because of our international obligations in this respect. It is important to ensure that the burden does not fall on taxpayers. The Bill is important for fishing and navigational interests and for the oil industry. I am glad that my right hon. Friend stressed the continuing importance of the oil industry to prosperity and growth in the economy.
As the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhyrmney (Mr. Rowlands) said, this was a truly consultative and co-operative effort. The Bill is now much better than when we discussed it on Second Reading. Much of the reason for that is my right hon. Friend, and our thanks go to him for piloting it through so well.

Mr. Bruce: I welcome the tone and content of the Minister's speech. It is important that people realise that the Bill puts down markers for the future. It would be wrong to assume that Parliament has taken a clear view on the best way Toward, as we do not have the information to do that.
We have set the framework within which to approach problems. It is important to give the Bill a Third Reading in that spirit. There are problems which must be dealt with and we need a framework for that. As the Minister said, we must increase research and development and consider the possible impact of abandonment before we can make a decision.
I still believe that less than total removal would be a concession. As the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) paraphrased me by saying, that might turn out to be a realistic concession because all interested parties believe that it is sensible. As long as people understand that we have established a framework and nobody assumes that their solution has been endorsed and act on that basis, we will have started down the right road.
It is important that people who are concerned with how we remove installations do not believe that Parliament has given them any exemptions from dealing with the matter comprehensively. The Minister knows that all interested parties will examine the regulations closely. It is essential that everybody is consulted and carried before any regulations are imposed.
With those qualifications in mind, I am happy to endorse the Bill and look forward with interest to see how this major issue develops.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I want to push him even at this late stage to gather research and development findings which emerge during the next few years. We are at the very forefront of this new technology and if British industry and technology are to advance there must be some determination to gather such experience.
It is clear that, unless we are outbid by the Japanese or a large American multinational, we may have to co-operate with our European partners to get contracts. It is certainly true that British business men will have to co-operate. We are talking about large sums of money and the removal, or partial removal, of these structures. Companies will be concerned, because it is new technology, and they will wish to ensure that company confidentiality is maintained. The Minister should establish a central gathering area.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for Third Reading stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Petroleum Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Durant.]

10 pm

Dr. Godman: I welcome the early introduction of the measure. While I accept that maritime demolition work will not start until the 1990s, we need to prepare in a sensible and realistic way. I acknowledge that some research work is being carried out, but more needs to be done. The work of removal will be highly technical, costly and, for some, potentially hazardous.
The marine environment should be restored to its former condition in the interests of the fishermen of the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) said, there are potentially exciting employment opportunities here. It is essential that we grab those opportunities, particularly in Scotland. Here we can talk of construction as well as maritime demolition in terms of the construction of crane barges, barges to transport sections to the shore, tugs and other ancillary vessels and structures. We must not allow foreign firms to dominate the novel work of maritime demolition. It has been a pleasure to welcome the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Housing (Scotland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss also the second order:
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.
and the prayer:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Housing Revenue Account Rate Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 11), dated 7th January 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January be annulled.

Mr. Ancram: Full details of the Housing Support Grant settlement are set out in the report.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it necessary to take all the orders together? Is it possible to take them separately?

Mr. Speaker: I put this to the House at the beginning.

Mr. Foulkes: I did not hear you.

Mr. Speaker: I certainly put it to the House. The House agreed that that should be done. The Minister is already on his feet.

Mr. Ancram: Full details of the Housing Support Grant settlement are set out in the report which accompanies the draft Housing Support Grant Order. In view of the time limit on the debate, I shall not burden the House with excessive detail. I shall explain the thinking behind these proposals and the limits that have been set out in the Housing Revenue Account Rate Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order.
We have reached agreement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the formula for the distribution of housing support grant this year. I should like to place on record our thanks to the convention for its contribution to our discussion.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister has just put on record his grateful thanks to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Is that the same COSLA that the Secretary of State for Scotland, in an arrogant and impudent speech earlier this evening, described as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Labour party?

Mr. Ancram: Whatever COSLA may or may not be, the discussions that we have had on the formula and the contributions that it made to those discussions were constructive and useful. Therefore, it is only right that in this instance I should record my appreciation of COSLA's part in them.
In the housing support grant settlement for 1987–88, the Government have aimed again at concentrating resources on those authorities which, in our view, require them. We have estimated eligible expenditure at £288·5 million and relevant income at £242 million. Housing support grant will therefore total £46·5 million. This will be distributed among the 25 authorities which we believe will incur deficits on their housing revenue accounts in 1987–88.
I should explain to the House that in response to representations by a number of authorities and hon. Members, and with the agreement of the convention, we have made a major change in this year's grant formula. Since the inception of HSG, the formula has incorporated a notional per head income amount on the income side of the equation to represent rate fund contributions to authorities' housing revenue accounts. Since 1985–86, however, the Secretary of State has used his statutory power to set limits on the amounts of rate fund contribution for which authorities may estimate. The notional amounts in the HSG formula, for that reason, have moved out of line with actual rate fund contributions. As a result, some authorities have received less grant, and others more, than had actual rate fund contribution figures been used. Overall, authorities as a whole benefited from the previous formula, but for 1987–88, if we continued to follow this approach, authorities would in total have received less than the figure arrived at using "real" RFC limits. For 1987–88, therefore, we have incorporated in the HSG formula a rate fund contribution figure for each authority based on a pro rata distribution of £30 million across Scotland according to council house stock numbers, or the authority's 1986–87 statutory rate fund contribution limit, whichever is the lower.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I urge the Minister to give the most sympathetic consideration to Inverclyde district council, given the massive unemployment and housing problems with which it is afflicted.

Mr. Ancram: I know that the hon. Gentleman on all these occasions obviously and understandably presses the interests of Inverclyde district council. In the change in the formula that we have made, it is generally accepted that we are now working on a more realistic basis. In this year's settlement we have reached a position which is more favourable than it would have been overall had we not made the change in the formula. We have answered the legitimate concerns which have been expressed to us in previous years by certain district councils which felt that they were losing out by what had by that time effectively become an artificial assumption within the formula.

Mr. John Maxton: Rather than fudging around with a lot of phoney language in response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), would the Minister make it clear to him that Inverclyde district council will receive no housing support grant whatsoever this year?

Mr. Ancram: The point that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) fails to appreciate is that we work by a formula. If he consulted his friends in COSLA, he would find that they agreed that this formula change should be made because, overall, it produced a more beneficial effect. Within a formula there will obviously be those who gain and those who lose.

Dr. Godman: In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) said, the Minister must surely acknowledge the massive problems that face Inverclyde district council? I am not worried about the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and lnverclyde (Mrs. McCurley). Inverclyde district council faces massive


problems. Its unemployment continues to rise remorselessly. The Minister knows that. I am making a plea for help for that council.

Mr. Ancram: We operate housing support grant on a formula, and I could not treat Inverclyde outside that formula.

Mr. Maxton: Oh, come on.

Mr. Ancram: I rather suspect that if the hon. Gentleman were ever, unlikely though it may be, to find himself with my responsibilities, he would find that where there is a formula that requires to be applied, he has to apply it. That is what is happening here.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ancram: I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Foulkes: That must mean me.

Mr. Forsyth: Will the formula take account of large numbers of empty houses? I cannot speak for Inverclyde, but I think that it has more than its fair share of houses that Labour authorities continue to leave vacant.

Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. However, the formula is not as sensitive as that. It deals with the stock held by the council, whether that stock is occupied or empty. It is important for Labour Members, as well as my hon. Friends, to appreciate that a formula improvement that takes account of real rate fund contributions as opposed to assumptions is better than the previous formula. I rather suspect that some Labour Members representing district councils will agree with that. In the case of certain councils, I am sure that the line that has been taken by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will not be acceptable. I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister has misunderstood the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I am not asking for special consideration for Cumnock and Doon Valley in the formula. We are saying that not enough money is available to maintain houses either through housing support grant or the rate fund contribution. This is a cut in funding.
Does the Minister recall that I sent him a letter and a survey carried out by the Dalmellington tenants association, which showed the number of houses needing repairs and the number of houses with dampness? Will he admit that Cumnock and Doon Valley is not being permitted enough funds to enable it to carry out proper repairs?

Mr. Forsyth: Give way.

Mr. Foulkes: I wish that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) would shut up. He is rabbiting on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) has crept into the debate at last.
Will the Minister admit that, if the money were available to Cumnock and Doon Valley district council, the housing at Dalmellington would be properly upgraded

and maintained, and any that were empty would be immediately snapped up? The council is unable to do that because the Minister is cutting its allocation.

Mr. Ancram: I listened with a great deal of interest to what the hon. Gentleman said. On occasions, I have to call him my hon. Friend, for reasons into which we need not go.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Foulkes: I make it clear that this is because I am a Quaker.

Mr. Ancram: I am a little surprised by the hon. Gentleman's allegation. I received his letter, and I am concerned about the structural problems in the housing stock of Cumnock and Doon Valley and the problems of dampness and condensation. I am sure that he was as appreciative as his council when its HRA allocation, which deals with the public sector stock, was increased by the extraordinary amount of 31 per cent. this year. How he can make these allegations, I fail to understand, unless his council has not yet informed him of the provisional allocation that it has received. I shall carry on because certain of his other points will be answered by what I say.
The end result of the formula change is that all authorities in HSG will benefit in 1987–88. Aggregate grant is £2 million higher than in the current year and £16 million higher than if we continued with the previous formula. I would have thought that for that reason, if for no other, local authorities, quite apart from COSLA, would welcome the change in the formula.

Mr. Maxton: Perhaps the Minister will clarify this point for the record. I think that he is a man who believes in some truth. Would it be better if he compared last year's housing support grant order in terms of money with this one? In that case, of course. there is a reduction of more than £4 million.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is aware that that is due to the variation that occurs as a result of changes in the interest rates. The real figure for the housing budgets of councils is affected if interest charges are lower than was expected. If interest rates moved in the opposite direction, I suspect that if I was to suggest that the amounts were higher because of that, the hon. Gentleman would be the first to challenge me. It is right that 1 should consider the figures after the interest rates are taken into account rather than to play with them in the way in which the hon. Member for Cathcart is playing with them.
The point about which Opposition Members cannot argue is that a formula which produces about £16 million more than the previous formula must be acceptable, and in general terms, I would have thought that the Opposition would welcome that, although I accept that at times we are surprised by the Opposition's response.
Local authorities' expenditure on housing is, of course, very sensitive to changes in interest rates and we are again applying an average rate of interest to authorities' individual volumes of debt— 10·4 per cent. has been assumed in this settlement. If, however, in practice, interest rates prove to be significantly different from our current assumptions, we will bring forward an appropriate variation order in due course. The 1986–87 variation order before the House today reflects a similar undertaking given at this time last year. Because average pool interest rates have fallen from 11 per cent. to 10·6 per cent. during


the year, HSG, as the hon. Member for Cathcart explained, is reduced for this year by £6·2 million to a revised amount of £44·5 million.
The figures in the housing support grant orders reflect our continuing concern to balance the undoubted need for expenditure on housing against our responsibility to control public expenditure as a whole. This is particularly the case in the amounts that we have allowed for management and maintenance expenditure. We are at present. in conjunction with the convention, involved in a review of these allowances. But, for 1987–88, we have uprated the management and maintenance provision in the 1986–87 settlement by 7 per cent., which is well above the rate of inflation. Rightly we believe that to be generous. In the light of present inflation rates, that should allow some real growth on repairs expenditure. The new figure is £303 per house—a total of £253 million.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Minister accept that many authorities, including West Lothian, are now becoming deeply worried about the problems of rewiring as the housing stock reaches a certain age? The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has given the figure of 118,200 houses which need rewiring. Do the Government dispute the COSLA figures? I recognise that this is a difficult problem.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman knows that COSLA set out a series of figures which I have not been prepared to accept and have asked COSLA to justify. I believe that there has been a degree of double counting.

Mr. Maxton: Of course there has.

Mr. Ancram: I wish that the hon. Member for Cathcart would stop muttering, "Of course there has been a degree of double counting." It took me six months to get him to admit that double counting had occurred in the first place.
We are all concerned to try to discover the real extent of need in Scottish housing and to meet that within the available resources. I will consider the question of capital allocations that I have made available this year in due course.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Briefly, in the light of the Minister's comments about the level of investment required and the doubt that exists within his Department about the COSLA figures, will he respond positively to the request made by COSLA in December for a working party of officials to examine some of the problems on a joint basis and provide figures about which we can all agree?

Mr. Ancram: I have told COSLA that I do not rule out the possibility of joint discussions at an official level. COSLA issued a series of figures last year and I have made a detailed response to them. I said that before we had joint discussions, I wanted to receive and consider COSLA's reaction to my response. That is a fair position for me to hold.
On the income side, we are assuming for the purposes of the settlement that rents will increase by £2 per week over 1986–87 order levels, bringing rents to £15·85 in order terms. Taking these housing support grant assumptions together with the Government's decisions on rate fund contribution limits, with which I will deal shortly, we estimate that average council house rents will rise by about

£1·32 per house per week in 1987–88. This will result in an average weekly rent for Scottish local authorities of about £14·34 per week.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ancram: This is a short debate and I have been very generous in giving way. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene later in my remarks, I shall give way then.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Ancram: I shall return to rents later in my speech and, depending on the time available, if the h on. Gentleman wishes to intervene then, I shall consider giving way to him.
Let me turn now to the Housing Revenue Account Rate Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1987. It is right to consider this order at the same time as the housing support grant orders, because they all directly affect the income side of authorities' housing revenue accounts.
The Government must take difficult decisions about the total resources which the country can afford to devote to housing, against the competing pressures on public expenditure as a whole. Although I am pleased to have been able to increase housing support grant because of the formula change, as I have already outlined our policy continues to be to reduce indiscriminate subsidies to enable us to devote greater resources to investment in the general housing stock.
Between 1981 and 1985 many authorities, by keeping rents unnecessarily and artificially low, and by requiring ever higher contributions from ratepayers to balance their housing revenue accounts, chose to forfeit £112 million of capital expenditure consents which could and should have been used to carry out modernisations, to deal with dampness, condensation and similar problems. However, since we took the statutory power to limit rate fund contributions, first exercised in 1985–86, this trend has been reversed. We have reduced the RFC aggregate from a non-statutory advisory limit of £120 million in 1984–85 to £43·7 million for 1987–88, as set out in the order before the House tonight. We have increased capital allocations on the HRA block each year by more than the RFC reductions required. For 1987–88, for example, the RFC limit aggregate is £26 million lower than for 1986–87, and this has contributed to a £40 million increase in the provisional HRA allocations next year as compared with 1986–87. The HRA allocation, at £362 million, is for the third year running substantially up in real terms. During the three years, the increase has been £135 million, or very nearly 60 per cent. over the level of three years ago.
Next year's allocations will again be augmented by authorities' ability automatically to carry forward underspends of up to 3·5 per cent. of the issued allocations. But capital allocations alone no longer provide a comprehensive picture of investment in council housing. As a result of the covenant scheme facility which we have temporarily made available, mainstream capital investment is likely to be boosted next year by a further £60 million and £215 million in total during the next three to four years. Investment in the Scottish council housing stock in 1987–88 will, therefore, be about £100 million, or over 30 per cent., higher than in the current year. Indeed, the increase over just three years is approaching 90 per


cent. and clearly demonstrates the Government's concern to enable the real problems in the housing stock to be tackled. I have to say that if today's problems are the legacy of past underinvestment and lack of proper repair and maintenance, a great deal of responsibility for those problems must lie with those who made policy between 1974 and 1979. [Laughter.] Oppositions Members laugh.
When the Labour party last held office, capital investment in Scottish housing by public agencies—the local authorities, the Housing Corporation, the Scottish Special Housing Association and new towns—fell in real terms by a massive and damaging 37 per cent. Since this Government came to office, we have turned the tide such that the figures for next year represent a real term increase of over 5 per cent. since 1979. That is the measure of the Government's commitment to dealing with Scotland's housing problems.
In setting an aggregate limit to rate fund contributions of £43·7 million, we have consulted widely about the implications of the individual limits set. The distribution of this aggregate took account, initially, of the number of council houses in each authority. We subsequently invited representations and considered carefully the implied rent increase and rent level in 1987–88 in each authority. As a result of those representations, we made upward adjustments for six of those authorities. Of course, rent implications for the 56 housing authorities vary widely. We took the view that rate fund contributions should be set so that, on the basis of reasonable assumptions on expenditure, individual authorities' average rent increases need not be higher than £2 per week and that no authority—

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Ancram: —should be required to raise its average rent level to more than £17·15per week.
If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will give way just once more in a moment.
In this calculation we again assumed that authorities would spend 7 per cent. more on management and maintenance than last year. As a result, we calculate that the average rent increase next year will be about £1·32 per week.

Mr. Foulkes: On the £1·32 per week rent increase, could the Minister express that as a percentage? Could he confirm that the average percentage increase is well in excess of 10 per cent.? Since inflation and wage increases are well below that, how does he expect the ordinary council house tenant to be able to pay for that huge rent increase?

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I am about to come to the point of percentages in comparative terms. The effect of our decisions in these orders on Cumnock and Doon Valley would be an estimated rent increase of just above the average that I have given.

Mr. Foulkes: How are they going to pay for it?

Mr. Ancram: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will just bear with me.
I expect we shall hear some exaggerated claims from Opposition Members about the effect of these limits upon rent levels. It is worth looking at what has happened in the

past. In the equivalent debate last year I predicted that rents would rise by up to £1·60 per week. In the event, the actual rent increase turned out to be just under £1·50. If rents go up by the £1·32 we are forecasting next year— and this figure was not disputed by the convention when I met it in December— the average council rent will stand at £14·34per week in Scotland. The rental figures that I am giving are not unreasonable.
Two points are worth emphasising. First, the £14·34 average next year is well below the current year's average council rent of £16·55 in England and Wales and below current rent levels in housing associations, the Scottish Special Housing Association and new town houses and the prevate sector in Scotland.
Secondly, although we hear much from the Opposition Benches about local authority rent increases over the past year, let me remind the House of some figures given in answer to the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) on 3 December 1986, which showed that registered rents, that is, fair rents independently assessed, in Scotland rose faster between 1979 and 1985 than local authority rents—by 174 per cent. against 135 per cent. Those are rent increases set not by councils but by independent assessment. In 1985 they stood at £2·64 per week higher than the local authority figure we are forecasting for 1987. Of course, if tenants have genuine difficulty in meeting their housing costs, relief is available to them through the housing benefit system.
Just in case the hon. Member has any interests in Kyle and Carrick, which I think may touch on part of his constituency, I might point out to him that the increase in rent involved in the figures that I have given tonight, in terms of our estimate, would be only 21 pence. I am sure that he, among others in the area, would welcome that.
In conclusion, let me emphasise that the figures included in the orders before the House tonight are designed to reinforce our policies for housing in Scotland across the whole range. Reductions in rate fund contributions and housing support grant, taken together, are evidence of our continuing determination to concentrate on using the resources available for housing on capital investment.
Indiscriminate subsidies are wasteful and do not encourage efficient management by authorities. The reduction in rate fund contributions will offer relief to hard-pressed ratepayers, and it has contributed towards further increases in capital expenditure. These increases, totalling nearly 60 per cent. over three years, together with the 7 per cent. increase for management and maintenance expenditure built into the calculations, will ensure overall that tenants benefit by a higher standard of housing provision.
We have consulted widely on the orders. I am satisfied that the figures they contain are fair and reasonable. I commend the orders to the House.

Mr. Norman Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was clear when the debate started that items 3 to 5 on today's Order Paper were to be taken together; the House had earlier consented to that. What was not clear, however, was that the Minister would take the best part of half an hour to address the House on the business. I am seeking your help, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any way in which we can undo the undertaking to deal with these matters together


so that the debate may be extended for three hours? That would allow the Opposition to reply adequately to the puerile case that was made by the Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not possible to extend the debate by the length of time that the hon. Gentleman wishes, because the House previously made a decision by motion to take the orders together. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker put the question to the House—I was present when he put it—about taking the orders and prayer together, and the House did not dissent.

Mr. John Maxton: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Minister will demand the right to reply to the debate, he will take up almost half the debating time. That is ridiculous, in a short but important debate.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman should not have intervened.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister says that I should not have intervened. I made only one short intervention.
I have heard of generosity, but generosity from this Minister cannot be believed. If he had applied the formula that he used in previous years he would have cut the housing support grant by £13 million instead of by only £6 million. I suppose one could call him generous for doing that.
The Minister then suggested that the Government have been inordinately generous because tenants in council houses have benefited from the marvellous works that this beneficent Government have done. He seems to think that they are a marvellous lot and that everyone will finish up voting for them. What a laugh.
Let us consider the facts. Let us start with the housing support grant. Let us see what has happened under this Government. In 1979, housing support grant was £213 million. By 1984–85, it was down to £120 million. By 1985–86, it was reduced to £90 million. In 1986–87, it was reduced to £51 million. This year it is being reduced again to £46·5million. Those are all in cash terms and not affected by inflation. In cash terms alone the reduction in housing support grant has been 75 per cent. Yet the Minister tried to tell us that he was being generous in increasing the capital allocation by some 5 per cent.
Let us examine the total package for this year. The rate fund contribution has been reduced from £70 million to £44 million. The housing support grant has been reduced from £51 million to £47 million. Those figures compare with £90 million and £64 million respectively in 1985–86. I accept that capital allocations have gone up from £325 million to £362 million. If we look at the totality of what is being spent on housing by the Government and the amount of money they allow local authorities to spend, we see that it was £446 million in 1986–87, and that it will be £453 million in 1987–88. That is an increase of £7 million and that includes this so-called enormously generous capital allocation. That is an increase of about 2·5 per cent., well below the rate of inflation. In real terms, it is once again a cut, even if we include those "generous" capital allocations.
There are now only 25 housing authorities in Scotland receiving any form of rate fund contribution or housing support grant. Two thirds of the total housing stock in Scotland receives no subsidy at all. Every time the Minister

gives these "generous" capital allocations, of course, it is the tenants through their rent who have to pay the interest on any capital loans taken out by local authorities. Sometimes the Minister tries to create the impression that a capital allocation is a sum of money that he gives to local authorities in grant. Of course it is not: it is money that the local authorities have to borrow.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maxton: The Minister made a long speech. I want to make a short speech so that other hon. Members can join in the debate. Every time a local authority borrows money, the tenant has to pay the interest in his rent. That is exactly what the Government intend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) asked about the percentage increase in rent. On average it will be 16 per cent. That is nearly four times the rate of inflation and more than double the estimated rise in earnings in that period. My hon. Friend is right when he says that many poor people who are waged cannot get housing benefit. They will struggle in order to meet those increases, because £1 or £1·20or £2 a week which is more likely to be the average will hit them hard. We have to look at what the Government give in support to local authority housing and what has been given in the past.
At present, only 12 per cent. of total council house costs come from central Government and 88 per cent. comes from the tenants in rent. In 1979–80 the rents made up only 47 per cent. of council house costs and grants made up 53 per cent. Council house tenants suffer under the Government. We in the Opposition do not suffer in that way because very few of my hon. Friends live in council houses. The tenants have suffered enormously as a result of what the Government have done. Repairs are not now carried out. The expenditure on repairs on council houses in Scotland has gone up by 50 per cent. in cash terms between 1979 and 1985–86. The rate of inflation in that period was 74·5 per cent. That means that there has been a massive cut in repairs by local authorities. We have seen higher rents, poorer repair services and fewer opportunities to move house because there has been a lack of new building and renovation of older properties. What has happened?

Mr. Ancram: What about empty housing?

Mr. Maxton: The Minister keeps on saying that, but of the empty housing in Scotland, 4 per cent. of privately owned property stands empty, 11 per cent. of privately rented property stands empty, but only 2 per cent. of council housing stands empty. The Minister's argument about council housing does not stand up.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: rose—

Mr. Maxton: I shall certainly not give way to the hon. Lady.
We should study the figures that have been drawn up by COSLA—they are based on figures provided by the Scottish Office. The Minister should remember that when he tries to evade the evidence. The figures relate to the condition of housing— that is what matters to people. Out of the 854,000 council houses in Scotland, 332,900


need modernising; 118,200 need to be rewired; 314,000 suffer from dampness or condensation, and 50,000 need major or structural repairs.
Of course, one can double count. One can spend a great deal of money to cure the dampness and condensation in a house without modernising it or vice versa. Any fool could work that out— even this Minister. COSLA estimate that it would cost £880 million per year for the next ten years to get the existing Scottish housing stock in order.
Scotland faces a major housing crisis and the tenants in council houses are facing major problems. However, at the end of the day, the Government simply do not care and nor does the Minister. Their only concern—

Mrs. McCurley: Rubbish.

Mr. Foulkes: You do not care either, Shirley Temple, so shut up!

Mr. Maxton: The Government are interested in cutting housing expenditure so that they can give bigger tax cuts to their wealthy friends. They are not interested in the 50 per cent. of people who live in council housing—it does not concern them. They are looking for cheap votes by giving tax cuts, but at the same time hitting the poorest and weakest in our society. I ask my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby to vote against these orders.

Mr. Allan Stewart: We have heard what might be described as a fairly traditional speech from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). It had little to do with the order and did not challenge the essential philosophy that was stated by my hon. Friend the Minister with his customary clarity.
My hon. Friend outlined a policy which will reduce indiscriminate subsidy and concentrate scarce resources on capital expenditure. The hon. Member for Cathcart did not say whether the Labour party agreed that that was an essentially sensible housing policy. Instead, the hon. Gentleman's speech totally disintegrated into an irrelevant discussion about tax cuts.
I agree with the basic thrust of what my hon. Friend the Minister said, but I am extremely disappointed that he has not gone further. The Minister can confirm that both housing authorities in my constituency, Eastwood and Renfrew, have fallen out of housing support grant. Therefore, we are talking of public expenditure of £46·5 million in Scotland, none of which benefits my constituents. Unless I am persuaded otherwise, that is therefore a logical reason for me and a number of my hon. Friends to vote with the Labour party. If it were successful in defeating the order, housing support grant would be abolished—clearly to the benefit of my constituents.

Mr. Bill Walker: While my hon. Friend is contemplating which way to vote, will he remember that in 1979 some £50 million was spent on housing benefit, whereas the current figure is more than £500 million? That aid is going to the individual householder directly from the public purse. It is massive support for individual householders in Scotland—in fact, more than 50 per cent.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has cut my speech by making a point that I was about to make.

When resources are scarce, it makes sense to concentrate them on individuals in need, not to spend them indiscriminately on broad, general subsidies.
When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, if he is left sufficient time to do so, I hope that the will confirm the position for Eastwood and Renfrew districts. Will he emphasise that there is no need to be defensive about a reduction in housing support grant? The logic of a sensible housing policy is to concentrate resources on people and on capital expenditure. I hope that he will confirm that next year he will, at the very least, announce a substantial reduction on the present support grant figure.

Sir Russell Johnston: I read in the Standard tonight that someone asked the Prime Minister what she had changed; she replied, "Everything". She has certainly changed the pattern and level of housing finance, and the effects of that have been both socially damaging and financially unjust.
I never cease to be amazed and. indeed, saddened by the number of people who ask me to help them obtain a house. All hon. Members must have experienced that. The great majority are genuine cases living in inadequate circumstances. What do we do?
We raise the matter with the local authority, but we know that it cannot help because there has been no new build, and there are no plans to begin any.

Mrs. McCurley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if a certain party in this House ended political patronage in the disposal—

Mr. Foulkes: Name that party, oh name that party.

Mrs. McCurley: We have in our midst a mimic—a highly inadequate and untalented mimic. I believe that if one does not have talent, one should keep quiet—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down then."] Does the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) agree that if there was not a certain degree of political patronage in assigning local council houses, that might end some of the problems?

Sir Russell Johnston: This hon. Gentleman does not agree, actually.
I was saying that there had been no new-build and no money to start any. Most of those who come to me for help do not have a hope of obtaining a mortgage. I imagine that that experience must be shared by Conservative Members, so I am surprised that they are not also shocked. After all, this is supposed to be the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless—to make no mention of the disabled.
This Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order could be called the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Contraction Order. When the Government took office, half of the housing revenue account in the Inverness district came from housing support grant, but the figure has now dropped to 16 per cent.—although I admit that, even at that level, it is better than a great many districts receive. In Aberdeen it has gone from 40 per cent. to 1·8 per cent., and next year it will disappear. In Strathkelvin and Bearsden it has gone from 32 per cent. to nil.
At first, councils tried to compensate by increasing the rate fund contributions, but, as we know, the Government cut that back. What was left? As the hon. Member for


Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, rents. In Aberdeen, rents have doubled as a percentage of the housing revenue account from 45 to 79 per cent. The Scottish average is 82 per cent. Rents have increased by 165 per cent. in the past seven years. As the hon. Member for Cathcart said. that is at least four times the rate of inflation. I accept that some increases were necessary, but I do not accept that it is fair that rents should now have become such a proportion of the housing revenue account. Inevitably, that means that council tenants are now funding general community services, such as the operation of the homeless persons Act through their rents. That is not reasonable.
One can see the consequences in the growth of housing benefit payments. If the Government introduce the cash-limited fund under the provisions of the Social Security Act 1986, which they can, I can see a mad scramble for what is available, and heaven knows what will happen then.
The Minister said that we were all concerned with the real extent of need. Therefore, why do we not have a housing condition survey? He also said that he did not rule out joint discussions. His dynamism makes one dizzy. Even if there is a dispute about COSLA figures—

Mr. Foulkes: He is almost as dynamic as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).

Sir Russell Johnston: Mr. Deputy Speaker, is there any way of keeping Shirley Temple's friend quiet?
Even if there is a dispute about the COSLA figures—and there is such a dispute, as both the Minister and the hon. Member for Cathcart have said—there cannot he any dispute about the scale and the gravity of the Scottish housing crisis, nor will the proposed capital allocation do anything other than slowly mitigate it.
With so many hon. Members wishing to speak in the debate, I can make only a brief contribution. I end by saying that I was quite struck by the Minister's ringing assertion—that is the only way of describing it—at the end of his speech when he said that the capital allocation had risen by five per cent. since 1979. He said
that that is the measure of the Government's commitment.
I suppose that, on that at least, he was right. He is the Minister with the five per cent. commitment.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman can make any assertions that he wishes as to whether a 5 per cent. real-term increase since 1979 is adequate. As a member of the Lib-Lab pact, why did he support a reduction of 37 per cent. in real terms during the period of office of the previous Labour Government?

Sir Russell Johnston: We do not need to go into history at the moment.

Mr. Bill Walker: Because it is uncomfortable.

Sir Russell Johnston: A lot of history is uncomfortable, as the hon. Gentleman will find when the election comes.

Mr. Alexander Pollock: I welcome the chance to say a few words in this short debate on Scottish housing orders. The Minister will recall that last July we had a debate on housing in the Scottish Grand Committee, when I raised several matters with him. He will no doubt also recall that at that time I urged the Government to increase support for the new-build programme. Since then, there has been some encouraging news. Indeed, the housing

capital allocation from the Scottish Office for 1987–88 is good news for my constituency of Moray. The housing revenue account allocation of £5 million represents a remarkable 93 per cent. of the district councils own bid and is an increase of 11 per cent. over the allocation of last March. The non-HRA block for the private sector is even better, with a 100 per cent. allocation of Moray district council's bid. That is most encouraging, and I congratulate the Minister on his response.
Of course, I must advise the Minister and the House of the important role of housing associations in new house provision, especially for those with special needs. I saw an excellent example of that last October when I had the honour of opening a new development at Buckpool undertaken by the Hanover housing association. I should like to remind the House of what I said on that occasion:
Of the seventy-seven Hanover schemes in Scotland, this Buckpool development is the eleventh to be tenanted by the elderly in Moray. It is worthy of note that Hanover Housing Association were the recipients of commendations for two earlier schemes in Moray at Rothes and Elgin …
I have no doubt that it is precisely because of the excellent record of the housing association movement … that the Government have invested over £100 million in Scotland for the sixth successive year and have enabled 24,000 houses to be added to the association's stock since 1979.
Since then, I have received details of further proposed housing association developments elsewhere in my constituency in Buckie, Keith and Dufftown, again all funded through the Housing Corporation from allocations by central Government via the Scottish Office.

Mr. Foulkes: That is something for the Banffshire Herald.

Mr. Pollock: It is indeed.
That, in turn, has been followed by both good, and possibly bad, news on funding. The Secretary of State, in his statement to the House on 9 December referred to the extra funding for the Housing Corporation, making a total of £123 million in Scotland. That sum was warmly welcomed by the Housing Corporation. But there is a worry about the provisional allocation of resources for 1987–88 announced at the turn of the year by the Housing Corporation. I have already written to the Secretary of State about this and I am sure that the Minister is also aware of the problem. It relates to achieving the right balance between extra assistance for housing needs within Strathclyde and the provision of needs elsewhere in Scotland. I hope that he can respond sympathetically when his decision is made.
Finally, I must speak of a matter raised in the July debate and touched on by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). It relates to ascertaining the true condition of the present housing stock. At that time I made clear the willingness of Moray district council to take part in a pilot survey which would be part of an early initiative to find out the state of the housing stock. In reply, the Minister made it clear that he might be willing to embark on such a scheme for two pilot authorities in 1987. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether he could say what progress has been made on reaching a decision on pilot schemes in Scotland. That would be of general and particular interest.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I should like to ask four clear, related factual questions.
First, COSLA states in its brief that 332,900 houses need remodernising. Do the Government accept that figure? If not, what is their figure? Secondly, COSLA says that 118,200 houses need to be rewired—a subject on which I interrupted the Minister. Do the Government accept this figure, or do they have a better figure of their own?
Third, COSLA says that 314,000 houses suffer from dampness and condensation. Again I repeat the same question: do the Government accept this figure, or do they have a better figure?
Fourthly, COSLA says that 150,000 houses need major or structural repairs. Again I ask the Government: do they agree with this figure, or do they have a better figure?
I promised to be extremely brief. The Minister will recollect that, when he was a well-received and very successful Conservative candidate in the West Lothian constituency, as was the hon. Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock), communities such as Whitburn and Blackburn, and also parts of Livingston, faced very real problems because of deterioration. The housing stock was built at a time when suddenly the rewiring, for reasons that were not the fault of the tenants or the local authority, or even the builders, deteriorated. Do the Government accept this problem of sudden deterioration? In particular, do they accept the COSLA figures? If they do not, the Government had better produce figures of their own.

11 pm

Mr. Bill Walker: I, too, shall be brief and will endeavour to concentrate my remarks on the orders and to relate them to the history of this matter.
Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that when we took office in 1979 there was a problem over the housing stock in Scotland and over the way in which local authorities were tackling the difficulties that faced individual tenants? We are concerned about individual tenants who are living in houses where there are problems.
Part of the difficulty was that many local authorities believed it to be their duty and responsibility to offer the same conditions to each of their tenants. They said that, if there were to be a fairly substantial input from ratepayers as a contribution towards rent support, it should go to everyone, regardless of whether or not they could afford to pay the rent in full.
We decided to provide aid to those who needed it and we have provided support in two ways. Support went to local authorities that used it to provide for tenants on a collective basis. Through housing benefits, we have also provided help for individual tenants. Indeed, the majority of help to tenants has been provided through housing benefit. It goes directly to the tenant and it pays part of the rent—often the whole of the rent.
The increase from £50 million in 1979 to £500 million today represents a real change in housing support. It goes directly to individual tenants, it is paid out of the public purse and it provides help for those in need. We are proud of that policy. It is wrong to adopt a blanket approach to the use of public money. Aid should go to those in need. A caring society looks after those who, for whatever reason, cannot provide for their own needs. That is the aim of our housing policy.

Mr. David Lambie: These orders will drive another nail into tenants' coffins. It is a further attempt by the Government to disregard Scottish traditions and to attack and discriminate against Scottish tenants. Cunninghame district council tenants are now facing a rent increase of £2·50 a week because of these orders. That is a 25 per cent. increase in rent, and the kind of increase that the council has never tried to impose before.
The increase has been brought about by three actions of this Government. This year, Cunninghame district council will receive no housing support grant. In fact, it has received nothing since 1983–84. It last received housing support grant when the influence of the last Labour Government was still being exercised. That was in 1980–81. Cunninghame district council then received just under £5 million. Therefore, the grant has been reduced by this Government from £5 million to nil.
The limit this year on the rate fund contribution is just under £800,000. That will have a rent impact of £2·28a week. The council can do nothing about it. Last year, the limit on the rate fund contribution was just over £2 million. This year, there is a 77 per cent. reduction. That is because this Government have failed to control interest rates. Interest rates of between 10 and 11 per cent. are being charged on houses, although in most other industrialised countries the interest rates on houses are between 3 and 6 per cent. In Japan, interest rates are 3 per cent.
The withdrawal of the housing support grant, the limit on the rate fund contribution and the failure of the Government's economic policy to control interest rates has meant that my district council is faced with that reduction. The people whom I represent, who live in council houses, face rent increases of £2·50per week. That is a continuation of the attack on people who live in public sector housing. The Urban Development Corporation—another major housing authority in my constituency—is allowing substantial increases in rents. The rents of the Urban Development Corporation are currently the highest of the new towns in Scotland. The Scottish Special Housing Association, which is under direct Government control, has increased rents by an average of 9 per cent., and in most of the areas that I represent by between 9 per cent. and 15 per cent. That is another attack by a south of England owner-occupation Tory Government against council tenants in Scotland.
I was surprised to hear the Minister and other Tory Members talk about indiscriminate subsidies. We are dealing with council housing, which receives no subsidy. The tenants in Cunninghame district council receive no housing support grant. The Minister did not mention the billions of pounds that the Government are paying in tax relief on interest on mortgages above £30,000. The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) did not mention the indiscriminate subsidies to the Prime Minister, who bought a house for £400,000 and has the cheek to claim an income tax rebate on her mortgage. Nobody mentioned the richest family in Britain, the royal family, who are buying indiscriminately—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Our conventions do not allow the hon. Gentleman to say that.

Mr. Lambie: The royal family are buying houses for members of their family, and they are claiming income tax rebates on the mortgage below £30,000.
I do not represent the rich people of Britain, or the rich people of the south-east of England, who have a tradition of owner-occupation. I represent council and public sector tenants, who are not receiving the indiscriminate housing subsidies that the Minister talked about, unlike the Prime Minister and all the people who are buying their houses. I represent the people who have been forced to live in council houses and pay increases in rent that they cannot afford, and a constituency where every third man is unemployed. That is why I will be voting against these orders.
I shall tell my electorate that unless we get a change of Government and of policy with regard to housing, so that the working people of Scotland get their share of these indiscriminate subsidies, we will never get fair treatment. That is why I am looking forward to the general election, to get rid of that crowd and get the representatives of the council tenants back in power in Britain, when we will get a fair deal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Sir Hector Monro.

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order, just once, to have a Scottish debate without another contribution from the hon. Member for Dumfries?

Sir Hector Monro: I shall just have to ignore the painfully rude intervention of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) should spend a little more time thanking the Government for the many new jobs that have been brought to his constituency. His constituents would be much more grateful for that than the rubbish that he has been talking for the past 10 minutes.
We appreciate the increase of £68 million in capital allocation for 1987–88. At £362·5 million, housing revenue account is up £40 million, or 12·5 per cent. To listen to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), however, one would think that the money had been reduced. On a three-year average, there has been an increase of 60 per cent. Non-HRA money affects the private sector and helps the building industry.

Mr. Foulkes: See what I mean? I cannot understand a word he says. We put up with it all the time.

Sir Hector Monro: It has increased substantially—by £28 million, or 24 per cent. Opposition Members, who are jeering away on the Back Benches, do not seem to realise that there is a substantial increase in money available for housing in Scotland.
Annandale and Eskdale has got 88·5 per cent of its bid, which is a 10 per cent. increase, and its HRA bid of 96 per cent. is an increase of 25 per cent. It is especially grateful for the HRA supplementary of £450,000 for 1986–87, out of a total of £1·5 million for Scotland.
For Nithsdale, which my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) also represents, it is impressive to see that HRA expenditure is going up by 15 per cent. in 1987–88 and that non-HRA expenditure is going up by no less than 114 per cent. That must be good for local building contractors.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and others in their tribute to the housing associations for the important part that they are playing, especially when housing is required for special needs. We should not miss out the Scottish Special Housing Association and fail to comment on the standard of housing that it provides.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North was right to stress the importance of housing benefit to the tune of £500 million, which has been completely ignored by the Opposition Front Bench. It is important to support people who are least able to afford good housing.
Scotland has benefited enormously from the sale of council houses, which was so vehemently opposed by the Opposition. That policy has successfully enabled many people in Scotland to own their own homes. Whatever the Opposition have said, and whatever is their reason for voting against this increased expenditure on housing in Scotland, the Government have done a first-class job.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: There is no doubt on this side of the House that housing allocations for the coming year are grossly inadequate and unable to deal with our bad housing situation.
Two questions must be asked. First, have the Government added to housing resources and, secondly, is the allocation adequate to meet the problems now to be found in the public sector? I was struck by the good briefing provided by the Convention of Scottish local Authorities, which showed that there is not all that great an improvement in the 1987–88 figures over the 1984–85 figures. It says that resources have been increased by £7 million between 1986–87 and 1987–88. This is a reduction of about 2 per cent. when inflation is taken into account. It also drew to the attention of those hon. Members whom it saw the fact that there is still a backlog in the repair grants in the private sector from 1984, when the 90 per cent. grants were abolished. That shows the extent to which the Government have been failing.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has made it clear that about 68 per cent. of local authorities now receive no rate support grant, and the city of Dundee has not had such a grant for 1983–84. Those of us who have to deal with constituencies with a large council house sector are all too well aware of the human misery that comes from repairs not being carried out in time, of problems of dampness that cannot be dealt with properly because of the slow down in insulation programmes, of the delays in carrying out repairs, particularly towards the end of the financial year, when the local authority has to wait for the new financial year to get access to cash, and of the slow-down in modernisation programmes. All of these are bad enough to describe, but, if we had to live with such housing conditions, there would be a squeal of pain, horror and anxiety from the Tory Benches, for a change.
The Government's statistical bulletin shows that in the first quarter of 1986 only 14 houses in Dundee were demolished. I refuse to accept, from my knowledge of the city's housing conditions, that that dealt with the problems of our housing. In that period, there were only two public tenders, and only 265 private sector grants. Table 8 in the bulletin shows that although starts were better, at 131 houses, that was completely Inadequate. Of that number, 35 were private starts, 19 were Scottish special housing


association starts, 77 were housing associations starts, but there were none by local authorities. The district was not able to supply the housing needs, particularly in the specialised housing sector. There were 46 completions—24 from the housing association sector, and 22 from the private sector. Such a record is inadequate to deal with the housing problems of one of Scotland's major cities.
Despite the letter that I recently received from the Minister, there is a question mark over what share of increased resources coming from the Housing Corporation will go to housing associations on the east coast. There is a great fear that what limited money is available will be taken to Glasgow and Strathclyde, and people on the east coast will not get a fair share of the cash.
It is hardly surprising that, of the rising unemployment in Dundee, a large part is caused by lack of employment in the building sector, because of lack of activity. People are unnecessarily laid off work when a good job could be done, which would upgrade the existing housing stock and provide desperately needed specialised housing.

Mr. Ancram: We have had a useful debate on these grant orders. It has been instructive for Conservative Members to find out how many Labour Members seem unaware of what allocations have been going to their areas. It was interesting to note that my hon. Friends appeared to be well aware of the way in which the Government have increased allocations and met the problems in Scotland's housing stock.

Mr. Maxton: Answer the questions.

Mr. Ancram: I am about to do so, but it is only right that first I set the debate in context.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) made it clear that in his area the HRA was increased by 23 per cent., and 100 per cent. of the non- HRA bid was met. I know that the people of Eastwood will be grateful for that and will not see it in the same terms as Labour Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), who made an excellent intervention, told us that 100 per cent. of her housing revenue account was met and that there was a 17 per cent. increase. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) seemed unaware that he had had an increase this year of 31 per cent. in his HRA—

Mr. Foulkes: I do not have an HRA.

Mr. Ancram: Over the past three years the hon. Gentleman's HRA capital allocation— the hon. Gentleman seems to think that he does not have one, but if he checks he will find that his district council does.

Mr. Foulkes: That is different.

Mr. Ancram: He will find that his district council has enjoyed an increase of 111 per cent. over the past three years, nearly double the average increase for Scotland as a whole. I find it difficult to accept from the hon. Gentleman that he is not grateful for that and that he does not believe that that will go a long way towards meeting the housing problems in the area that he represents.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a number of specific matters that were based on COSLA

figures. I have some difficulty in answering his questions because his figures do not tally with those that appear in the COSLA paper that was presented to me in the summer of 1986. I shall be interested to learn why there are differences between the hon. Gentleman's figures and those of COSLA. The hon. Gentleman referred to the problems of condensation and dampness, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). It is worth reminding the House that because we recognise these problems we have encouraged local authorities to concentrate their efforts on tackling the difficulties. To that end, we have issued special allocations amounting to £61 million over three years. We made it clear at the time that we were issuing them that we did not expect £61 million to be the total sum spent on tackling condensation and dampness. The allocations were additional to those that would have been made and we made them in the hope that we would encourage housing authorities to move faster on these serious and difficult problems.
The latest check-list figures— these are the figures that we use because they come from the councils—tend to suggest that the increase in allocations is having the desired effect. Over the past year the number of houses requiring treatment for condensation has fallen by 37,000 or over 15 per cent. That is a reduction from 28 per cent. to 24 per cent. of the total stock. If we take the total of affected stock in the third category, which is the most severe, we find that there has been a reduction from 25 per cent. to 12 per cent. Over the same period the percentage of the total stock affected by dampness has reduced from 7·7 to 4·7. These are the figures that are provided to the Government by the local authorities in their check lists.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) stirs in his place, but the figures suggest that, contrary to the argument that he has advanced of a deterioriation, the problems of condensation and dampness have been reduced. We should recognise that and congratulate the local authorities on responding to the encouragement that we have given them and tackling the problems.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister might make it clear that all COSLA's figures come from the same check lists.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has heard me say that because of that, and because we were supplied with the same figures, we question the figures that have been put to us this evening. Housing surveys would present only a general picture of the problems in Scotland, and accordingly the check lists provide a sounder basis for assessment.

Mr. Dick Douglas: While any diminution in levels of condensation and dampness is to be welcomed, what steps are the Minister's Department taking to monitor the supposed decrease? I paid a visit to one of the most difficult housing areas in Dunfermline on Monday with representatives of the two local authorities concerned and it was manifestly clear that whatever the authorities believe—and I am not knocking the local authorities—the tenants, having rising aspirations and rising standards, are faced with the problem of rising dampness and rising condensation.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman asked what steps we are taking to monitor progress. We look closely at the


check lists which are returned to us by the local authorities, to assess what changes have occurred in comparison to previous years, to evaluate the trends and to decide what problems exist within the housing stock. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed the fact that those check lists show that the encouragement that we have given, which means that authorities will spend £135 million—or 60 per cent.—more than they were spending three years ago, is beginning to have some effect.

Mr. Bill Walker: Before my hon. Friend concludes his remarks, will he carefully consider the point that I raised about housing benefit and the way in which that relates to the percentages given from the Opposition Front Bench? The Opposition Front Bench obviously took no account of housing benefit when they calculated the public financial support given to local authority housing in Scotland. If the Opposition work out percentages without considering all the inputs, they will always come up with the wrong answers. If they feed in rubbish, they will get rubbish out.

Mr. Ancram: When my hon. Friend made that very percipient intervention, I nodded in agreement, because he is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Cathcart, as always, gave only part of the figures. If he considers the total provision for housing, he must take into account the housing benefit. If there is a rental effect, that benefit may be replacing some of the indiscriminate subsidies that were paid before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was absolutely right. The figure of housing benefit paid in Scotland in 1979–80 was £58·925 million. The 1986–87 figure was £503·075 million. If the hon. Member for Cathcart had been honest with his figures, he would have had to have taken those figures into account.
The hon. Member for Cathcart continued to quote figures and claimed that there was an increase of only £7 million next year in the capital allocations. He said that the rise was from £446 million to £453 million. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the capital allocations issued in March last year for the current year were £441·5 million. The provisional allocations for next year with both blocks together on the same basis is £510 million—a £68 million increase and a 15 . 5 per cent. increase overall. The hon. Gentleman does himself and his credibility no favours by diminishing the figures.
The hon. Member for Cathcart also claimed that only 25 authorities in Scotland were still in housing support grant. He did not mention the fact that the number of housing authorities in housing support grant will be higher in the coming year than last year because of the change in the formula that I have mentioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mr. Pollock) raised a number of important points, in particular matters relating to the Housing Corporation. The Housing Corporation will be submitting its annual development plan to me. I will want to consider that carefully and I will bear in mind the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Moray also referred to the pilot scheme for a local housing condition survey. I can confirm that Moray district council was approached but declined to participate and my original offer was not fulfilled.
I always enjoy the speeches made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie). Tonight he told

us about the requirement to increase rents by more than £2·50 within Cunninghame district council. Our estimate, as a result of the orders under discussion tonight, is that there will be an increase of £1·07. I am sure that there are very good reasons why Cunninghame district council has decided to make a higher increase than that. What is more interesting, in the light of what the hon. Gentleman said, is that Cunninghame district council's rents are the lowest in Scotland at only £10·53. I f our increase was added, they would rise to £11·60, but they would still be among the lowest in Scotland.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that we must relate Scottish figures to English figures? Is it not true that, under the orders, Scottish rents will still be lower than those in England?

Mr. Ancram: Yes. I made it clear in my original remarks that that will remain the case. Indeed, with average manual workers' wages in Scotland at about the same level as those in England, it is interesting to note that a lower proportion of that income is spent on rent than it is south of the border.
I hope that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) will support the orders, because the councils of Inverness, Lochaber and Nairn will receive more housing support grant in 1987–88 than they did this year. I am sure that he will welcome that and will be in the Lobby with us tonight.
In this debate, as usual., we have heard from the Opposition nothing but tales of destruction and deterioration in Scotland's housing stock under this Government. May I point out that under this Government 140,000 new houses have been built— a 3·5 per cent. increase in the total stock at a time when the population is falling. The Government are proud of that figure. Under the Government, the number of sheltered dwellings has trebled to more than 22,400 compared with the figure under the Labour Government. On the same basis, the number of amenity dwellings has trebled to more than 8,500. During the past three years, capital allocations for local authorities have increased by almost 60 per cent. More local authority dwellings were improved last year—45,000—than in any of the previous 10 years.
That is a record of which the Government can be proud, and I ask my hon. Friends to support the orders.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Variation Order 1987, which was laid before this House en 14th January, be approved.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND)

Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 14th January, be approved.—[Mr. Ancram.]

HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT (SCOTLAND)

It being one and a half hours after proceedings on the first motion were entered upon, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [6 February], to put the Question on the remaining motion.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Housing Revenue Account Rate Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No.


11), dated 7th January 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be annulled— [Mr. Maxton]:—

The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes 169.

Division No. 90]
[11.32 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
John, Brynmor


Alton, David
Johnston, Sir Russell


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Kennedy, Charles


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Kirkwood, Archy


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Lambie, David


Beith, A. J.
Lamond, James


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Leadbitter, Ted


Bermingham, Gerald
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Boyes, Roland
Livsey, Richard


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Loyden, Edward


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bruce, Malcolm
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Buchan, Norman
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Caborn, Richard
McWilliam, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Madden, Max


Canavan, Dennis
Mallon, Seamus


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Marek, Dr John


Clarke, Thomas
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clay, Robert
Maxton, John


Clelland, David Gordon
Michie, William


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Nellist, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
O'Brien, William


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Parry, Robert


Craigen, J. M.
Patchett, Terry


Dalyell, Tam
Pike, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dixon, Donald
Prescott, John


Dormand, Jack
Redmond, Martin


Douglas, Dick
Rogers, Allan


Dubs, Alfred
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Rowlands, Ted


Fatchett, Derek
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Faulds, Andrew
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Skinner, Dennis


Fisher, Mark
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Foster, Derek
Soley, Clive


Foulkes, George
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman
Steel, Rt Hon David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Strang, Gavin


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Wallace, James


Hardy, Peter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Haynes, Frank
Welsh, Michael


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wilson, Gordon


Home Robertson, John



Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Mr. Tony Lloyd and


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. Ron Davies.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Peter


Amess, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Ancram, Michael
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Arnold, Tom
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Ashby, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bright, Graham


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brinton, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Brooke, Hon Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Browne, John


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Bruinvels, Peter


Blackburn, John
Budgen, Nick


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Butcher, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Butterfill, John





Carttiss, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Oppenheim, Phillip


Chope, Christopher
Ottaway, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Colvin, Michael
Pollock, Alexander


Coombs, Simon
Portillo, Michael


Cope, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Corrie, John
Powley, John


Cranborne, Viscount
Price, Sir David


Crouch, David
Proctor, K. Harvey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Raffan, Keith


Dicks, Terry
Rathbone, Tim


Dorrell, Stephen
Rhodes James, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dover, Den
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Dunn, Robert
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Durant, Tony
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Rost, Peter


Fallon, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Favell, Anthony
Ryder, Richard


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Forth, Eric
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Fox, Sir Marcus
Sayeed, Jonathan


Galley, Roy
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Sims, Roger


Hanley, Jeremy
Speed, Keith


Hayes, J.
Speller, Tony


Hicks, Robert
Spencer, Derek


Hirst, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Holt, Richard
Squire, Robin


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Stern, Michael


Jackson, Robert
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Key, Robert
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Knowles, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lang, Ian
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Latham, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Terlezki, Stefan


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Lester, Jim
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Lightbown, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Lilley, Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lord, Michael
Tracey, Richard


Lyell, Nicholas
Trippier, David


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Trotter, Neville


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Twinn, Dr Ian


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Maclean, David John
Wall, Sir Patrick


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Major, John
Warren, Kenneth


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Watson, John


Mather, Sir Carol
Watts, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wheeler, John


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Whitfield, John


Merchant, Piers
Wiggin, Jerry


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Winterton, Nicholas


Monro, Sir Hector
Wolfson, Mark


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Wood, Timothy


Murphy, Christopher
Woodcock, Michael


Neale, Gerrard



Needham, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Neubert, Michael
Mr. Francis Maude and


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. Gerald Malone.


Norris, Steven

Question accordingly negatived.

Settle-Carlisle Railway Line

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. David Maclean: I should like to preface my remarks tonight by thanking all my parliamentary colleagues who have lent me their support and encouragement for this debate. In particular, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) and for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Watson), and the hon. Gentleman, my friend, the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis), who is recovering from an illness or he would be with us tonight. All of them were fighting for the retention of this line even before I was elected, and I pay tribute to their valiant efforts.
I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce another debate on the Carlisle to Settle line. The House will be aware that I initiated a debate on 12 March 1984, shortly after my maiden speech in this House. Since that time a lot has happened and the main arguments have been conducted outside the parliamentary arena while the transport users consultative committees inquiries were taking place. Now that these inquiries have been concluded and the report of the TUCC is lying on the Minister's desk, it is appropriate once again to return the argument to the political arena. It is also important to have this debate because we have before us a unique report. Never before in our history can we have had a joint report from two committees which ends with the words:
On the basis of the undoubted hardship the closure of the line would cause together with the strength of the commercial case presented for its retention, the Committee strongly and emphatically recommend that consent to British Rail proposals to close the Settle to Carlisle line be refused.
It is my intention to put on record on the Floor of the
House some of the comments from the joint TUCCs' report which make up that emphatic recommendation.
When I gave evidence to the inquiry at Appleby last year, I said to the chairman:
I do wish to make clear that in addition to the hardship evidence which I shall present here today, I shall avail myself of the opportunity to use the direct line to the Minister. I shall show to him that British Rail have adopted a policy of wanton neglect of this line, that they have failed to spend a fair proportion of the Exchequer subsidy on it; failed, until very recently, to market it properly and deliberately or negligently changed trains timetables to discourage use. I shall seek to show to him that the line is of strategic diversionary importance as we shall see this coming Easter weekend when approximately 66 trains will be re-routed over it. We all know that it is part of our great engineering heritage but it can also be part of an exciting enterprise future if it was integrated into a proper tourism development plan, perhaps with the injection of private capital.
I did not anticipate at that time that the TUCCs would look at factors other than hardship and, I am delighted to say, come to some very firm and sensible conclusions. First, I want to tell the House about the hardship that would be occasioned to my constituents, and particularly to those in Appleby.
The TUCCs concluded that very severe hardship would be caused to elderly and disabled people travelling to Carlisle to make hospital visits, for essential shopping needs and to visit friends and relatives. They also said that people travelling to destinations in the Leeds direction and

beyond to visit relatives or for other essential purposes, and those for whom no private transport is available, would suffer hardship.
The TUCCs also concluded that severe hardship would be caused to mothers and others travelling with babies and/or young children who find travelling by bus more arduous than by train and who would have difficulty making the interchange between bus and train at Penrith. In addition, the TUCCs listed all those other cases where there would be considerable hardship a nd an element of hardship caused to my constituents.
Of crucial importance is the TUCCs' conclusion on how to alleviate that hardship. They said:
The committees believe that there is no way of satisfactorily alleviating the hardship that would be caused to those using Appleby station and those benefiting from the existence of the railway.
That is a devastating and quite conclusive comment, but in addition to the rail users living and working in Appleby, the committees also identified others who would suffer if the line closed. For example, 16 per cent. of economically active residents in Appleby are engaged in jobs generated by tourism, and it is clear that closure of the Settle to Carlisle line would have a serious effect on the town's economic fortunes.
The Minister will see that the committees have also dealt with through services on the Carlisle to Settle line, and I think it is fair to say that they were highly suspicious of the timetabling and re-routeing changes that had taken place, confirming the suspicion held by many of us that British Raid had adopted closure by stealth tactics that have now, thankfully, backfired. The committees concluded that there would be many cases of severe and considerable hardship caused to through travellers if the line closed, and said that any proposals for alleviating hardship produced by British Rail would, if effected, benefit comparatively few people.
Many constituents who have written to me have pointed out the strategic importance of the Settle to Carlisle line in its own right, and also its importance as a diversionary route on those all too frequent occasions when the west coast main line is out of action. Again, the committees were more inclined to believe the survey done by the Friends of the Settle to Carlisle Line Association showing that the line was used for diversionary purposes on many more occasions than British Rail was prepared to admit.
However, British Rail's preferred diversionary route is apparently the Cumbrian coast line, which is so eminently suitable for diversionary purposes that current coaching stock using this line has iron bars fixed over the windows preventing passengers from putting their heads out because the trains pass so close together. Every time a west coast main line train is diverted British Rail proposes to solve that problem by instituting single line working and issuing verbal warnings to passengers not to stick their heads out of the window. Therefore, quite rightly, the committees concluded:
The Cumbrian Coast Line would not provide an acceptable alternative for diversionary services. It appears that very high expenditure will be necessary to improve the line capacity and journey times for diverted services. Indeed, it struck the Committees that British Rail's approach to the diversionary potential of this line lacked credibility and was somewhat haphazard.
They are the TUCC's conclusions, not mine, but they happen to coincide.
Let me turn briefly now to financial matters. Here we have some difficulty because the TUCCs pointed out:
Throughout the public hearing the Committees repeatedly asked British Rail to substantiate its case for closure by providing estimates of the cost required to renovate and maintain the Settle to Carlisle line and the savings that would be effected if the line closed. This request was always declined. The Committees much regretted this decision, not least because it limited British Rail's participation in the public hearing.
I do not have the time to go into those matters tonight, but I would urge my hon. Friend to consider carefully the detailed financial arguments presented by the TUCCs. Those arguments are unique because no TUCC in the past, to my knowledge, has ever attempted to untangle British Rail's financial case.
Much has been said about the cost of repairing the Ribblehead viaduct, but all that I want to say tonight is that I will contrast the wanton neglect of it with the repair work that has just been done to the 40-arch Welwyn viaduct in Hertfordshire as featured in Railnews in November 1986. That viaduct has been waterproofed in eight weekends at a cost of £160,000. The article states:
This will protect its brickwork from damage by water penetrating from the track above, and had the work not been done now the cost of repairing long term damage to the Viaduct would have been many times greater.
No wonder the TUCCs said:
The Committees were surprised that British Rail did not take the opportunity to replace the waterproof membrane when it singled the track over the Ribblehead Viaduct in January 1985.
Over the past two years we have had so many conflicting reports of the cost of repairing this viaduct, and, indeed, the other structures along the route, that I have come to the conclusion that we must have an independent consultant's report on it, commissioned by the Minister. How can my hon. Friend reach a sound conclusion if there is so much doubt about the structural and engineering soundness of the line? Therefore, I must press my hon. Friend most strongly tonight to commission a firm of internationally renowned structural engineers to carry out a full independent study of the Ribblehead viaduct and the other viaducts and tunnels along the route so that we can have definitive answers, once and for all, on the real repair costs and thereby settle this argument for ever.
Although British Rail was reluctant to produce figures on the line, happily many other organisations were keen to submit financial evidence. I have just received a letter from the secretary of the Friends of the Settle to Carlisle Line Association, which states:
I think the most important topic at the moment is the British Rail press release of December 22nd. This is said to be a statement of finance upon which the closure proposal is based. We think the figures are misleading, and this statement deserves very close examination.
A few points are: it mixes Capital Expenditure in with the Revenue position; it ignores the cost of the proposed alternative rail and bus services; it offsets Interest and Depreciation of as yet unbuilt Sprinter units against Current Revenue; it says only 10 per cent. of passengers are making `essential' journeys— as if that is relevant! In fact this means that as 90 per cent. of passengers must be travelling for the pleasure of the Settle and Carlisle itself, 90 per cent. of Revenue would not transfer to the proposed alternative service, i.e. closure would mean a loss in income of £900,000 per year.

In short, this statement is a woefully inadequate presentation of the BR case for closure, yet it is all that members of the public are being allowed to examine.
I entirely agree with that statement, and I ask my hon. Friend to use his powers to examine the financial case much more closely than can Back-Bench Members.
Also of particular significance is the case presented by Mr. Album, a solicitor acting for the Friends of the Settle to Carlisle Line Association. His financial memorandum amply exposes the illogicalities and inconsistencies in British Rail's financial case and, as I know that my hon. Friend has a copy of that memorandum, I urge him to study it very closely indeed. If he does, he will come to the same conclusion as the TUCCs, namely:
On the basis of the financial evidence submitted at the public hearings by objectors and, in particular, that submitted by the Joint County Councils and the Joint Action Committee and in the absence of any detailed financial information or submission from British Rail, the Committees were convinced that there was no case for closing the line on financial grounds.
Indeed, the committees came to the opposite view, namely:
It is the unequivocal view of both Committees that the assets which comprise the infrastructure of the Settle to Carlisle line should be fully exploited by all the appropriate sectors of British Rail— InterCity, Provincial, Parcels and Freight— for the benefit of customers and to maximise revenue.
Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I turn to the marketing of this line—or rather the lack of marketing, which has been British Rail's approach in the past. British Rail has discovered to its surprise that, with a minimum of promotion, a market for the line clearly exists. British Rail should be congratulated on its marketing initiative, small and under-resourced as it is, but the results have been spectacular. We now have evidence that the line has doubled its income in the last year and a record number of trains are now running on it. The TUCCs' report states:
It is acknowledged within British Rail that the Settle to Carlisle line is, in relative terms, one of the provincial sector's most financially successful lines in that it more than covers its operating costs.
But the report went on to say:
It has been firmly established that the line ranks as a marketable product with long term growth potential within British Rail's network provided the will is there.
On Monday of this week my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for tourism gave a special £230,000 cash grant to boost tourism in the north of England, with an additional £20,000 to boost tourism in Cumbria. That initiative is widely welcomed by my constituents, but there is no point in adopting that aggressive marketing stance if British Rail does not exploit to the full the potential of this line of tourism and related activities.
My constituents and my hon. Friends know that the Carlisle to Settle line offers an opportunity for sustained growth and, with it, increased efficiency and profitability. We all conclude just what the TUCCs unanimously concluded:
Whereas British Rail did not make a detailed case for the closure of the Settle to Carlisle line, the Joint County Councils, the Joint Action Committee and, indeed, hundreds of individual objectors convinced the Committees that there is an overwhelmingly strong case for its retention.
When my hon. Friend studies the report, I am sure that he will come to exactly the same conclusion.

Mr. John Watson: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Watson) have consent to speak from the hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean) and the Minister?

Mr. John Watson: I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. I can be quite brief because I simply wish to make two points that may not have been fully aired in the debate during the past year. First, it is now almost 20 years since this line was last considered for closure. In 1967, the conclusion reached was that the line should remain open.
It is instructive to look at what has happened to the passenger figures in the 20 years since then. About 230 passengers used the line from Settle station in my constituency in July 1967. In July 1985, the last year for which figures are reliably available, the number was 1,470. That is an increase of 540 per cent. in 20 years. For Skipton, the figure 20 years ago was 640 passengers per week. In 1985 that figure was 3,860—an increase of 503 per cent.
It seems rather perverse that at a time of falling passenger numbers and revenues across Britain as a whole, British Rail should now be seeking to close the one line that has seen such a dramatic increase in its passenger flow.
Secondly, I should like to comment upon the nature of the decision that my hon. Friend the Minister will shortly have to take. When the need for such a decision first became apparent about six years ago, it seemed that it would be a local affair. The line was remote, rural, in the north and losing money. Its closure was judged to be a matter of little concern, other than to local Members of Parliament who would be troubled, and it was felt that that would be the end of it. However, by 1984 the scale of things had changed. By then the coming decision was seen as highly symbolic of the Government's attitude to railways in general. Now the climate has moved beyond even that. It is now a decision about what kind of railway system Britain should have. A decision to close the line now would be consistent only with a policy of minimum service, doubtful arithmetic and rural decline. A decision to retain the line would be a true acknowledgement of the environmental, economic and historic value of our complete railway network. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take that latter course.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I should like to thank hon. Members for the debate this evening and for the interesting points which have been raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has put his views and those of his constituents robustly, as he usually does; I should add that he has frequently done so to me privately. I have noted the views that have been expressed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I shall take them into consideration.
As my hon. Friend will know, I have already travelled on the line myself and admired the beauty of the countryside through which it passes. It crosses magnificent viaducts and bridges that are a tribute to the skill and sacrifice of the engineers and the work forces who built

them more than 100 years ago. I have also had a chance to talk to local people and to hear their views about the line at first hand.
My main function tonight is to listen to the arguments, rather than to discuss their merits. As the House will recognise, I must be careful not to prejudice the final decision on the case before all the evidence has been fully considered. My hon. Friend. will recognise that it would be improper for me to express my view.
The TUCCs are independent bodies set up on a regional basis to represent the interests of all rail users. The TUCC or, in the case of the Settle-Carlisle line. the two TUCCs, must consider the objections and report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the hardship which would be caused by the proposed closure and on ways in which it might be alleviated. They may hold public hearings to receive oral evidence from objectors and representations from British Rail. As my hon. Friend knows, they have certainly done a thorough job on that.
In reaching a decision on whether to allow the line to be closed, my right hon. Friend must consider the TUCCs' report on hardship together with all other relevant factors, including wider social and economic considerations.

Mr. Robert Adley: Inadvertently, I was not allowed my one-minute say on this. Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government's decision will be a litmus test of the Government's commitment to the railway and the heritage? Does he further accept that large numbers of people in this House and beyond regard the closure of the line as unthinkable, unspeakable and unacceptable?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has, as always, put his views succinctly and forcefully and I have noted them.
In this case Briitish Rail proposed closure because of the heavy maintenance now required on the viaducts, bridges and tunnels on the line. Each of these has been assessed by the board's civil engineers. They estimate that they need to spend almost £1 million every year for the foreseeable future to maintain them to the required standard for passenger use. The immediate problem is the need for urgent heavy repairs to the Ribblehead viaduct, which has deteriorated recently because of exposure to harsh weather. British Rail estimates that between £2·7 million and—4·3 million needs to be spent on the viaduct now to restore it to a condition which would make it suitable for long-term passenger train use. It also says that modern rolling stock and radio signalling should be introduced to ensure that passenger services can continue at the lowest possible cost to taxpayers.
British Rail did not make its financial case available in time for the TUCC hearings. The statute did not require it to do so. The hearings were concerned with hardship, not finance. But it is my right hon. Friend's responsibility and mine to consider the financial aspects together with the other issues. British Rail submitted its case last December and published a summary. I understand that Sir Robert Reid, chairman of British Rail, has now agreed that the full case should also be made publicly available. I am sure that the House will welcome that.
I am also aware of the calls for independent scrutiny of British Rail's estimates—something for which my hon. Friend expressly called in his speech. I have heard what he said and I think he is right. It would be helpful to consider carefully the best way to ensure some independent


assessment of the costs. I am in no way suggesting that there is any deception by British Rail, but I recognise the widespread unease and the feeling that these estimates should be subject to an independent check. Perhaps the best way I can proceed is to talk to the joint local authorities' steering committee in the area about what independent group it feels would be appropriate.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister accept the view expressed by the great majority of people in Cumbria that the matter should not be decided exclusively on financial grounds but should be based primarily on the county's heritage? Everyone wants to retain the line basically for that reason.

Mr. Mitchell: I shall of course take the heritage aspect into account, as will my right hon. Friend, but I believe that there are much wider considerations than simply the heritage in the minds of those in Cumbria who are callng for the line to be retained. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border succinctly expressed a number of those considerations.
If my right hon. Friend agrees to closure, British Rail proposes that the present services between Leeds and Carlisle should be replaced by a service with new Sprinter diesel multiple units via Giggleswick and Carnforth. Giggleswick is just over one mile from the centre of the town of Settle.
The line runs through the areas of the north-eastern and north-western England TUCCs. Those bodies have produced a joint report for my right hon. Friend. I should like to pay tribute to the two committees for all their hard work in preparing that document. The report unequivocally recommends that my right hon. Friend should refuse consent to the closure of the line, on the grounds of the hardship that would he caused to the local communities and others, including tourists. My right hon. Friend and I will pay close attention to what the TUCCs have said and balance it against British Rail's case for closure. I think that the whole House would wish me to put on record our appreciation of the work that those committees have done.
As required by the Transport Act 1968, we must also have regard to the wider social and economic considerations. I cannot at this stage give a comprehensive list of what all those considerations will be, but they will certainly include the effect of closure on the local economy and on tourism. There is evidence that over two thirds of

passengers travel on the line simply to enjoy the ride and that over 90 per cent. of the journeys are for leisure purposes. We shall take into account the effect of closure on the various historic structures along the line. If the line is to remain open, the funding implications need careful study. Because of my right hon. Friend's role in considering the case, neither he nor I can lead a fundraising campaign. We are in a quasi-judicial position. Nevertheless, we need to establish whether contributions to the upkeep of the line are likely to be available from sources other than the public service obligation grant.
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is essential that the financial performance of the line should be subject to the most careful scrutiny before any decision on closure is reached. I give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Those are just some of the significant issues that my right hon. Friend and I shall need to consider very carefully before reaching our decision. We appreciate that the line's future needs to be settled as quickly as possible. However, this is a large and complex case, and we must allow ourselves sufficient time to consider properly all the various factors and possibilities. I cannot therefore tell hon. Members when we shall be in a position to issue a decision, but I hope that what I have said tonight will reassure hon. Members that my right hon. Friend and I will take this case most seriously and that there will be no decision until we have given the most careful consideration to all the relevant evidence.
Perhaps I may add, on a personal basis, that I have already visited the line and attended three public meetings in Carlisle, Appleby—at the Moot hall—and Settle, and that I have also visited several halt stations and crawled over the Ribblehead viaduct. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border will know that I am keenly aware of the very strong feelings both locally and nationally about this line.
That urges me on to make the most careful assessment of the various points that have been put to us, in terms of hardship and a critical and careful examination of British Rail's financial case, and also in terms of the wider economic considerations that affect towns like Appleby. I have vivid recollections of a meeting in the Moot hall in Appleby that was very—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.